ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluation of NHS Injectable Medicines Guide users' information needs related to the co-infusion of intravenous medicines: user survey and Delphi consensus study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore intravenous drug compatibility information needs of National Health Service (NHS) Injectable Medicines Guide ('Medusa') users. To develop consensus expert recommendations on the intravenous drug compatibility information that Medusa should include.
designA convergent parallel design. An online survey of Medusa users. A three-round Delphi project developed expert consensus.
settingCommunity, secondary, tertiary and mental healthcare sites across the UK.
participants142 Medusa users completed the online survey (114 nurses, 28 pharmacists). A panel of 16 nurses and 25 pharmacists currently practising in the NHS with professional expertise relevant to the compatibility of injectable medicines participated in the Delphi project. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Users' ratings of the importance of different types of compatibility information. Consensus expert agreement on a six-point scale regarding the compatibility information that should be provided by Medusa.
results97 (68%, 95% CI 60 to 75%) users were involved in the co-infusion of drugs at least weekly. Most users reported co-infusing intravenous fluids (n=116, 82%, 95% CI 75 to 87%), antibiotics (n=85, 60%, 95% CI 52 to 68%) and analgesics (n=81, 57%, 95% CI 49 to 65%) in the past year. They considered information on whether drugs are compatible/incompatible, and the concentrations and diluents in which this occurs, most important (Friedman test p<0.001, Dunn-Bonferroni pairwise comparisons p≤0.028). The expert panel also identified these topics as important for all infused drugs, along with information on time frames, supporting data and specific requirements for the intravenous line (median agreement rating of both professions ≥5 with IQR ≤1.75 in each case).
conclusionThe co-infusion of drugs is common, so supporting information continues to be important. The most relevant information is that identified by both users and the expert panel: whether drugs are compatible/incompatible, and the concentrations and diluents in which this occurs. The expert panel's recommendation to provide information for all infused drugs contrasts with current more limited national recommendations.
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.