Patients' Perspectives on the Quality and Safety of Intravenous Infusions: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND: The administration of medication or fluids via the intravenous route is a common intervention for many hospital inpatients. However, little research has explored the safety and quality of intravenous therapy from the patient’s perspective, despite the role of the patient in patient safety receiving increased attention in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients’ perspectives on the perceived quality and safety of intravenous infusions and identify implications for practice. METHOD: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 hospital patients receiving intravenous infusions in critical care, oncology day care, general medicine, and general surgery areas within 4 National Health Service hospitals in England. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four underlying and interlinked themes were identified: knowledge about intravenous infusions, challenges associated with receiving intravenous infusions, the role of health-care professionals, and patients’ attitudes toward receiving infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were generally satisfied with receiving infusions; however, factors that contributed to decreased feelings of quality and safety were identified, suggesting areas for intervention. Issues to do with infusion pump alarms, reduced mobility, cannulation, and personal preferences for information, if given more attention, may improve patients’ experiences of receiving intravenous infusions

Intravenous Infusion Administration: A Comparative Study of Practices and Errors Between the United States and England and Their Implications for Patient Safety

Introduction Intravenous medication administration is widely reported to be error prone. Technologies such as smart pumps have been introduced with a view to reducing these errors. An international comparison could provide evidence of their effectiveness, including consideration of contextual factors such as regulatory systems and local cultures. Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate similarities and differences in practices and error types involving intravenous medication administration in the United States and England, and summarise methodological differences necessary to perform these parallel studies. Methods We drew on findings of separate point prevalence studies conducted across hospitals in each country. In these, we compared what was being administered at the time of observation with the prescription and relevant policies, errors were classified by type and severity, and proportions of infusions featuring each error type were calculated. We also reviewed what adaptations to the US protocol were needed for England. Authors independently reviewed findings from both studies and proposed themes for comparison. In online meetings, each country’s research team clarified assumptions and explained their findings. Results Key themes included commonalities and contrasts in methods, findings, practices and policies. Although US sites made greater use of smart infusion devices, and had more precisely defined requirements around infusion device use, patterns of errors were similar. Differences among clinical contexts within each country were as marked as differences across countries. Regulatory and quality control systems shape practices, but causal relationships are complex. Conclusion Infusion administration is a complex adaptive system with multiple interacting agents (professionals, patients, software systems, etc.) that respond in rich ways to their environments; safety depends on complex, interrelated factors

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