Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29288174›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings.

Nancy Hedlund, Idal Beer, Torsten Hoppe-Tichy, Patricia Trbovich

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Advances in safe insulin infusions.Drugs in context · 2021
    Review
  17. Long-term stability of ready-to-use norepinephrine solution at 0.2 and 0.5 mg/mL.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
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

4 authors.

Nancy HedlundBaxter Healthcare Corporation, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Deerfield, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0297-9091
Idal BeerMedical Affairs, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, Illinois, USA.
Torsten Hoppe-TichyPharmacy Department and Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Patricia TrbovichInstitute of Health Policy, Medicine and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine published evidence on intravenous admixture preparation errors (IAPEs) in healthcare settings.

methodsSearches were conducted in three electronic databases (January 2005 to April 2017). Publications reporting rates of IAPEs and error types were reviewed and categorised into the following groups: component errors, dose/calculation errors, aseptic technique errors and composite errors. The methodological rigour of each study was assessed using the Hawker method.

resultsOf the 34 articles that met inclusion criteria, 28 reported the site of IAPEs: central pharmacies (n=8), nursing wards (n=14), both settings (n=4) and other sites (n=3). Using the Hawker criteria, 14% of the articles were of good quality, 74% were of fair quality and 12% were of poor quality. Error types and reported rates varied substantially, including wrong drug (~0% to 4.7%), wrong diluent solution (0% to 49.0%), wrong label (0% to 99.0%), wrong dose (0% to 32.6%), wrong concentration (0.3% to 88.6%), wrong diluent volume (0.06% to 49.0%) and inadequate aseptic technique (0% to 92.7%)%). Four studies directly compared incidence by preparation site and/or method, finding error incidence to be lower for doses prepared within a central pharmacy versus the nursing ward and lower for automated preparation versus manual preparation. Although eight studies (24%) reported ≥1 errors with the potential to cause patient harm, no study directly linked IAPE occurrences to specific adverse patient outcomes.

conclusionsThe available data suggest a need to continue to optimise the intravenous preparation process, focus on improving preparation workflow, design and implement preventive strategies, train staff on optimal admixture protocols and implement standardisation. Future research should focus on the development of consistent error subtype definitions, standardised reporting methodology and reliable, reproducible methods to track and link risk factors with the burden of harm associated with these errors.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousHumansMedication Errorsdrug compoundingintravenous admixture preparation errormedication errorssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29288174
PMCPMC5770837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.