ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
ElastoMeric Infusion Pumps for Hospital AntibioTICs (EMPHATIC): A Feasibility Study.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElastomeric infusion pumps (EMPs) are safe and effective for administering outpatient intravenous (IV) antibiotics. We hypothesized that EMPs may provide benefits in the inpatient setting. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of giving IV antibiotics using EMPs to adult inpatients and to identify barriers and facilitators for their implementation. METHODS AND
objectivesPatients who were 18 years of age and over requiring at least seven days of IV flucloxacillin, benzylpenicillin or piperacillin/tazobactam and who were clinically stable were eligible. We collected quantitative data for feasibility, clinical outcomes and intervention acceptability. We applied an implementation research framework to help triangulate the data. Analyses were descriptive, with the intent of preparing for future studies.
resultsIV antibiotics from 94 EMPs were administered to nine patients, with five patients completing treatment with an EMP. Five of the six patients surveyed said they would use EMPs again. Nurses felt EMPs were safer, less time consuming and improved working conditions. IV antibiotics via EMPs cost GBP 32.50 (GBP 3.35-GBP 83.44) more per day than intermittent infusions. Residual volume in EMPs was an issue which resulted in reduced antibiotic doses being delivered. The main facilitators to use of EMPs in the inpatient setting were adaptability, tension for change, recipient centeredness and needs of the deliverers. The barriers were lack of advantage, critical incidents and cost.
conclusionThis proof of concept feasibility study shows that it may be feasible to use EMPs in the inpatient setting. There is potential to improve patient and staff experience; however, cost and residual volume are potential barriers to implementation, with further studies required.
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.