Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471247›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Critical Care Nurses' Knowledge of Correct Line Types for Administration of Common Intravenous Medications: Assessment and Intervention Study.

Rania Al-Jaber, Natalie Samuda, Ahmad Chaker, James Waterson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rania Al-Jaber *Pharmaceutical Care Division, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4279-4502
Natalie Samuda *Clinical Support Services, Medication Management Solutions, Becton Dickinson, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5983-7225
Ahmad Chaker *Pharmacy Services, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1697-1974
James Waterson *Medical Affairs, Medication Management Solutions, Becton Dickinson, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4100-5970
Abu Dhabi Health Services · AEKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SAMedication Management (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a paucity of information in the literature on core nursing staff knowledge on the requirements of specific intravenous administration lines for medications regularly given in critical care. There is also a lack of well-researched and appropriate information in the literature for intravenous administration line selection, and the need for filtration, protection from light, and other line-material selection precautions for many critical and noncritical medications used in these settings to maintain their potency and efficacy.

objectiveWe aimed to assess the knowledge gap of clinicians with respect to intravenous administration line set material requirements for critical care medications.

methodsData were drawn from a clinician knowledge questionnaire, a region-wide database of administered infusions, and regional data on standard and special intravenous administration line consumption for 1 year (2019-2020) from an enterprise resource planning system log. The clinician knowledge questionnaire was validated with 3 groups (n=35) and then released for a general survey of critical care nurses (n=72) by assessing response dispersal and interrater reliability (Cronbach α=.889). Correct answers were determined by referencing available literature, with consensus between the team's pharmacists. Percentage deviations from correct answers (which had multiple possible selections) were calculated for control and test groups. We reviewed all 3 sources of information to identify the gap between required usage and real usage, and the impact of knowledge deficits on this disparity.

resultsPercentage deviations from correct answers were substantial in the control groups and extensive in the test group for all medications tested (percentage deviation range -43% to 93%), with the exception of for total parenteral nutrition. Respondents scored poorly on questions about medications requiring light protection, and there was a difference of 2.75% between actual consumption of lines and expected consumption based on medication type requirement. Confusion over the requirements for low-sorbing lines, light protection of infusions, and the requirement for filtration of specific solutions was evident in all evidence sources. The consumption of low-sorbing lines (125,090/1,454,440, 8.60%) was larger than the regional data of medication usage data would suggest as being appropriate (15,063/592,392, 2.54%).

conclusionsThere is no single source of truth for clinicians on the interactions of critical care intravenous medications and administration line materials, protection from light, and filtration. Nursing staff showed limited knowledge of these requirements. To reduce clinical variability in this area, it is desirable to have succinct easy-to-access information available for clinicians to make decisions on which administration line type to use for each medication. The study's results will be used to formulate solutions for bedside delivery of accurate information on special intravenous line requirements for critical care medications.

Indexed as

critical care, intravenous medication, compatibility, administration error, infusion maintenance, medication interactionknowledgesurvey

Identifiers

PMID35471247
PMCPMC9092237
OpenAlexW4224943874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.