Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study of policy and practice across 16 hospital trusts in England.

BACKGROUND: Procedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed. RESULTS: At least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5-49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues.

Patients' Perspectives on the Quality and Safety of Intravenous Infusions: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The administration of medication or fluids via the intravenous route is a common intervention for many hospital inpatients. However, little research has explored the safety and quality of intravenous therapy from the patient's perspective, despite the role of the patient in patient safety receiving increased attention in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' perspectives on the perceived quality and safety of intravenous infusions and identify implications for practice. METHOD: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 hospital patients receiving intravenous infusions in critical care, oncology day care, general medicine, and general surgery areas within 4 National Health Service hospitals in England. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four underlying and interlinked themes were identified: knowledge about intravenous infusions, challenges associated with receiving intravenous infusions, the role of health-care professionals, and patients' attitudes toward receiving infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were generally satisfied with receiving infusions; however, factors that contributed to decreased feelings of quality and safety were identified, suggesting areas for intervention. Issues to do with infusion pump alarms, reduced mobility, cannulation, and personal preferences for information, if given more attention, may improve patients' experiences of receiving intravenous infusions.

Intravenous Infusion Administration: A Comparative Study of Practices and Errors Between the United States and England and Their Implications for Patient Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous medication administration is widely reported to be error prone. Technologies such as smart pumps have been introduced with a view to reducing these errors. An international comparison could provide evidence of their effectiveness, including consideration of contextual factors such as regulatory systems and local cultures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate similarities and differences in practices and error types involving intravenous medication administration in the United States and England, and summarise methodological differences necessary to perform these parallel studies. METHODS: We drew on findings of separate point prevalence studies conducted across hospitals in each country. In these, we compared what was being administered at the time of observation with the prescription and relevant policies, errors were classified by type and severity, and proportions of infusions featuring each error type were calculated. We also reviewed what adaptations to the US protocol were needed for England. Authors independently reviewed findings from both studies and proposed themes for comparison. In online meetings, each country's research team clarified assumptions and explained their findings. RESULTS: Key themes included commonalities and contrasts in methods, findings, practices and policies. Although US sites made greater use of smart infusion devices, and had more precisely defined requirements around infusion device use, patterns of errors were similar. Differences among clinical contexts within each country were as marked as differences across countries. Regulatory and quality control systems shape practices, but causal relationships are complex. CONCLUSION: Infusion administration is a complex adaptive system with multiple interacting agents (professionals, patients, software systems, etc.) that respond in rich ways to their environments; safety depends on complex, interrelated factors.

Errors and discrepancies in the administration of intravenous infusions: a mixed methods multihospital observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous medication administration has traditionally been regarded as error prone, with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation, including the contribution of smart pumps. METHODS: We conducted an observational point prevalence study of intravenous infusions in 16 National Health Service hospital trusts. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs. RESULTS: Data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. Errors were observed in 231 infusions (11.5%, 95% CI 10.2% to 13.0%). Discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions (53.0%, 95% CI 50.8% to 55.2%). Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; none were judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of errors and discrepancies varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect, with similar error rates observed in infusions delivered with and without a smart pump (10.3% vs 10.8%, p=0.8). CONCLUSION: Errors and discrepancies are relatively common in everyday infusion administrations but most have low potential for patient harm. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be a more helpful tactic than striving to eliminate all deviations.