Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26311566›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2016

Medicine preparation errors in ten Spanish neonatal intensive care units.

Ainara Campino, Casilda Arranz, Maria Unceta, Miguel Rueda, Beatriz Sordo, Pilar Pascual, Ion Lopez-de-Heredia, Elena Santesteban

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Intravenous drug use in neonatal intensive care units.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Intravenous medicine preparation technique training programme for nurses in clinical areas.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ainara CampinoHospital Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Plaza de Cruces s/n, 48903, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain. campiville@gmail.com.
Casilda ArranzNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. Casilda.arranzcerezo@osakidetza.net.
Maria UncetaHospital Biochemistry Laboratory, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. maria.uncetasuarez@osakidetza.net.
Miguel RuedaHospital Biochemistry Laboratory, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. miguel.ruedagutierrez@osakidetza.net.
Beatriz SordoHospital Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Plaza de Cruces s/n, 48903, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain. Beatriz.sordoaisa@osakidetza.net.
Pilar PascualHospital Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Plaza de Cruces s/n, 48903, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain. pilar.pascualgarcia@osakidetza.net.
Ion Lopez-de-HerediaNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. juanmaria.lopezdehered@osakidetza.net.
Elena SantestebanNeonatal Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Barakaldo, Spain. esantesteban@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the rate of errors in intravenous medicine preparation at the bedside in neonatal intensive care units vs the preparation error rate in a hospital pharmacy service. We conducted a prospective observational study between June and September 2013. Ten Spanish neonatal intensive care units and one hospital pharmacy service participated in the study. Two types of preparation errors were considered: calculation errors and accuracy errors. A total of 522 samples were collected: 238 of vancomycin, 139 of gentamicin, 39 of phenobarbital and 88 of caffeine citrate preparations. Of these, 444 samples were collected by nurses in neonatal intensive care units, and 60 were provided by the hospital pharmacy service. Overall, 18 samples were excluded from the analysis. We detected calculation errors in 6/444 (1.35%) and accuracy errors in 243/444 (54.7%) samples from the neonatal intensive care units. In contrast, in samples from the hospital pharmacy service, no calculation errors were detected, but there were accuracy errors in 23/60 (38.3%) samples.

conclusionWhile calculation errors can be eliminated using protocols based on standard drug concentrations, accuracy error rates depend on several variables that affect both neonatal intensive care units and hospital pharmacy services. WHAT IS KNOWN: Medication use is associated with a risk of errors and adverse events. Medication errors are more frequent and have more severe consequences in paediatric patients. Lack of knowledge of drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in relation to physiological immaturity makes neonates more vulnerable to medication errors. WHAT IS NEW: Calculation errors are avoided using concentration standard preparation protocols. Accuracy in the preparation process depends mainly on the degree to which commercial drug preparations meet current legal requirements and the syringes and preparation techniques used.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalAdministration, IntravenousDrug CompoundingHumansInfant, NewbornMedication ErrorsPharmacy Service, HospitalProspective StudiesSpainAccuracyIntravenous medicineMedication errorsNeonatal intensive care unitNewborn infantPreparation errors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.