Observational studyApplied clinical informatics2020
Direct Observational Study of Interfaced Smart-Pumps in Pediatric Intensive Care.
Observational study in Applied clinical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standard Intravenous Concentrations in German Neonatal Intensive Care: Results of a National Consensus and Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Physicians' Perspectives with the E-prescribing System in Five Teaching Hospitals.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Implementation of a national system for best practice delivery of paediatric infusions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Mapping Injection Order Messages to Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources to Collate Infusion Pump Data.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Quantifying the Impact of Infusion Alerts and Alarms on Nursing Workflows: A Retrospective Analysis.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProcesses for delivery of high-risk infusions in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are complex. Standard concentration infusions (SCIs), smart-pumps, and electronic prescribing are recommended medication error reduction strategies. Implementation rates in Europe lag behind those in the United States. Since 2012, the PICU of an Irish tertiary pediatric hospital has been using a smart-pump SCI library, interfaced with electronic infusion orders (Philips ICCA). The incidence of infusion errors is unknown.
objectivesTo determine the frequency, severity, and distribution of smart-pump infusion errors in PICUs.
methodsProgrammed infusions were directly observed at the bedside. Parameters were compared against medication orders and autodocumented infusion data. Identified deviations were categorized as medication errors or discrepancies. Error rates (%) were calculated as infusions with errors and errors per opportunities for error (OEs). Predefined definitions, multidisciplinary consensus and grading processes were employed.
resultsA total of 1,023 infusions for 175 patients were directly observed over 27 days between February and September 2017. The drug library accommodated 96.5% of infusions. Compliance with the drug library was 98.9%. A total of 133 infusions had ≥1 error (13.0%); a further 58 (5.7%) had ≥1 discrepancy. From a total of 4,997 OEs, 153 errors (3.1%) and 107 discrepancies (2.1%) were observed. Undocumented bolus doses were most commonly identified (
conclusionThe error rates identified are low compared with similar studies, highlighting the benefits of smart-pumps and autodocumented infusion data in PICUs. A range of quality improvement opportunities has been identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.