ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2026
A national benchmarking survey to explore the use of dose error reduction software in adult intensive care units (ICUs).
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2026. 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
Background: Dose Error Reduction Software (DERS) are downloaded onto Smart Pumps with minimum and maximum infusion rate settings to reduce the risk of medication errors when administering intravenous medicines. There are no current national standards for the application of this technology on Adult Intensive Care Units (ICU), and clinical application and governance of this technology is currently unknown. Method: A multicentre, cross-sectional survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire to explore practical aspects of Smart Pump containing DERS use, such as whether a DERS library was present, how it was managed, how propofol was administered, what kind of error reporting processes were in place, as well as nursing qualifications and competencies on ICUs in England. Results: A response rate of 50.7% (136/268 responses) ICUs units in England was achieved and indicated that 63.2% (86/136 responses) of responding units had a Smart Pump containing a DERS library. Three administration strategies were used, mg/kg/h, mL/h and 'Other' (which most responses stated as mg/h) for propofol for continuous sedation in ICU Smart Pump containing DERS libraries. In 68.6% (49/86 responses) of ICUs, DERS use and DERS error rates are not reported through local operational and governance structures. DERS use was significantly associated with units having a Clinical Nurse Educator with a postgraduate education certificate ( Conclusions: There are no standardised DERS settings for the anaesthetic agent propofol and inconsistent approaches to Smart Pump containing DERS governance oversight across ICUs in England. Further research is required to understand the clinical significance of identified variability.
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.