Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30936751›Full record

ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2019

Evaluation to improve the quality of medication preparation and administration in pediatric and adult intensive care units.

Theresa Hermanspann, Eva van der Linden, Mark Schoberer, Christina Fitzner, Thorsten Orlikowsky, Gernot Marx, Albrecht Eisert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Ability to identify patient-ventilator asynchronies in intensive care unit professionals: A multicenter cross-sectional analytical study.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Theresa HermanspannHospital Pharmacy, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, thermanspann@ukaachen.de.
Eva van der LindenDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Section of Neonatology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, thermanspann@ukaachen.de.
Mark SchobererDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Section of Neonatology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, thermanspann@ukaachen.de.
Christina FitznerDepartment of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Thorsten OrlikowskyDepartment of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Section of Neonatology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, thermanspann@ukaachen.de.
Gernot MarxDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Albrecht EisertHospital Pharmacy, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany, thermanspann@ukaachen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the type, frequency, and factors associated with medication preparation and administration errors in adult intensive care units (ICUs) and neonatal ICUs (NICUs)/pediatric ICUs (PICUs). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a prospective direct observation study in an adult ICU and NICU/PICU in a tertiary university hospital. Between June 2012 and June 2013, a clinical pharmacist and medical student observed the nursing care staff on weekdays during the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs. We analyzed the frequency and type of preparation and administration errors and factors associated with errors.

resultsSix hundred and three preparations in the adult ICU and 281 in the NICU/PICU were observed. Three hundred and eighty-five errors occurred in the adult ICU and 38 in the NICU/PICU. There were 5,040 and 2,514 error opportunities, with overall error rates of 7.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The total opportunities for error meant each single step of preparation and administration that was relevant for the drug. Most errors applied to the category "uniform mixing" (adult ICU: n=227, 59%; NICU/PICU: n=14, 37%). The multivariate logistic regression results showed a significantly different influence of the "preparation type" for the adult ICU compared with the NICU/PICU with regard to the occurrence of an error. Preparations for adult patients of the LCD type (liquid concentrate with diluent into syringe or infusion bag) were more often associated with errors than the P (powder in a glass vial that must be reconstituted and diluted if necessary),

conclusion"Uniform mixing" was the most erroneous preparation step in intravenous drug preparations in two ICUs. Improvement of nurse training and the preparation of prefilled syringes in the pharmacy might reduce errors and improve the quality and safety of drug therapy.

Indexed as

intravenous medicationmedication errorsmedication safetypatient safetyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30936751
PMCPMC6429998

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.