Intravenous infusion practices across England and their impact on patient safety: a mixed-methods observational study

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) medication administration has traditionally been regarded to be error-prone with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed surprisingly few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation in errors, discrepancies and practices, including the contribution of smart pumps. DESIGN: Phase 1 comprised an observational point-prevalence study of IV infusions, with debrief interviews and focus groups. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as either errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs, and analytically in supplementary analyses. Phase 2 comprised in-depth observational studies at five of the participating sites to better understand causes of error and how safety is maintained. Workshops were held with key stakeholder groups, including health professionals and policy-makers, the public and industry. SETTING: Sixteen English NHS hospital trusts. RESULTS: Point-prevalence data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. In total, 240 errors were observed in 231 infusions and 1489 discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions. Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; one might have resulted in short-term patient harm had it not been intercepted, but none was judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of deviations varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or to respond to patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect. Staff had developed practices to manage efficiency and safety pragmatically by working around systemic challenges. LIMITATIONS: Local observers may have assessed errors differently across sites, although steps were taken to minimise differences through observer training, debriefs, and review and cleaning of data. Each in-depth study involved a single researcher, and these were limited in scale and scope. CONCLUSIONS: Errors and discrepancies are common in everyday infusion administration but most have low potential for patient harm. Findings are best understood by viewing IV infusion administration as a complex adaptive system. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be more helpful for improving patient safety than striving to eliminate all deviations. FUTURE WORK: There is potential value in reviewing policy around IV infusion administration to reduce unnecessary variability, manage staff workload and engage patients, while retaining the principle that policy has to be fit for purpose, contextualised to the particular ward situation and treatment protocol, and sensitive to the risks of different medications. Further work on understanding infusion administration as a complex adaptive system might deliver new insights into managing patient safety. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study of policy and practice across 16 hospital trusts in England

Background: Procedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts. / Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed. / Results: At least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5–49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking. / Conclusions: Deviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues

Ontology of knowledge management systems elements.

Knowledge management often refers to various theories and definitions. However, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly knowledge management is and what constitutes a knowledge management system. We are engaged in research into the development of knowledge management systems from principles of practical knowledge management uncovered by a thorough analysis of the literature. As a precursor to field work with ‘knowledge practitioners’ we have conducted our analyses on the ‘practices’ embodied in seminal work of scholars, even as they have changed for individual researcher over time. Thus this paper explains our approach in attempting to identify elements of knowledge management systems according to scholars’ texts in the literature

Nurses as a source of system-level resilience: Secondary analysis of qualitative data from a study of intravenous infusion safety in English hospitals

BACKGROUND Deviations from local policy and national recommended best practice are common in the administration of intravenous infusions, but not all result in negative consequences. Some are the result of nurses’ clinical judgement. However, little is known about such practices and their effects on the safety of intravenous infusions. Our objective was to explore ways in which nurses contribute to system-level resilience when administering intravenous infusions. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from debriefs and focus groups from a mixed methods study of errors and policy deviations in intravenous infusion administration across 16 English hospitals. Analysis focused on nurses’ contributions to system-level resilience, drawing on Larcos’s et al. framework of types of resilience. RESULTS Five types of system-level resilience were identified in nurses’ behaviour: anticipatory resilience, responsive resilience, resilience based on past experience, workarounds and nurses performing informal ‘risk assessments’ in relation to how best to treat individual patients. Examples of practices contributing to infusion safety were found for each of these types of resilience. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest nurses are a key source of system-level resilience. Some behaviours that may be considered deviations from policy or best practice are the result of reasoned clinical judgement to improve infusion safety in response to the specific situation at hand. Adaptive behaviour is necessary to cope with the complexity of practice. There is a tension between standardisation and supporting flexibility in safety management

Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study of policy and practice across 16 hospital trusts in England

Background: Procedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed. Results: At least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5–49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking. Conclusions: Deviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues