Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31197746›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2019

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

Ann Blandford, Patricia C Dykes, Bryony Dean Franklin, Dominic Furniss, Galal H Galal-Edeen, Kumiko O Schnock, David W Bates

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Medication errors in Jordan: A systematic review.International journal of critical illness and injury science
    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

7 authors.

Ann BlandfordUCL Interaction Centre and Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK. a.blandford@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-7122
Patricia C DykesDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-0732
Bryony Dean FranklinResearch Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-1245
Dominic FurnissUCL Interaction Centre and Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-4367
Galal H Galal-EdeenUCL Interaction Centre and Institute of Digital Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0342-5250
Kumiko O SchnockHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-6399
David W BatesHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6268-1540

Funding

Department of Health 12/209/27Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (GB) 12/209/27
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntravenous 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.

objectivesThe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsKey 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.

conclusionInfusion 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.

Indexed as

Medication ErrorsEnglandHumansInfusions, IntravenousPatient SafetyPharmaceutical PreparationsUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID31197746
PMCPMC6739270

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.