Evaluating Independent Double Checks in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Human Factors Engineering Approach.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-18 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001205
Leah Konwinski, Caryn Steenland, Kayla Miller, Brian Boville, Robert Fitzgerald, Robert Connors, Elizabeth Sterling, Alicia Stowe, Surender Rajasekaran
{"title":"Evaluating Independent Double Checks in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Human Factors Engineering Approach.","authors":"Leah Konwinski, Caryn Steenland, Kayla Miller, Brian Boville, Robert Fitzgerald, Robert Connors, Elizabeth Sterling, Alicia Stowe, Surender Rajasekaran","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goal of this human factors engineering-led improvement initiative was to examine whether the independent double check (IDC) during administration of high alert medications afforded improved patient safety when compared with a single check process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The initiative was completed at a 24-bed pediatric intensive care unit and included all patients who were on the unit and received a medication historically requiring an IDC. The total review examined 37,968 high-risk medications administrations to 4417 pediatric intensive care unit patients over a 40-month period. The following 5 measures were reviewed: (1) rates of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications; (2) hospital length of stay; (3) patient mortality; (4) nurses' favorability toward single checking; and (5) nursing time spent on administration of IDC medications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications was not significantly different across the groups (95% confidence interval, 0.02%-0.08%; P = 0.4939). The intervention also did not significantly alter mortality ( P = 0.8784) or length of stay ( P = 0.4763) even after controlling for the patient demographic variables. Nursing favorability for single checking increased from 59% of nurses in favor during the double check phase, to 94% by the end of the single check phase. Each double check took an average of 9.7 minutes, and a single check took an average of 1.94 minutes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that performing independent double checks on high-risk medications administered in a pediatric ICU setting afforded no impact on reported medication events compared with single checking.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001205","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of this human factors engineering-led improvement initiative was to examine whether the independent double check (IDC) during administration of high alert medications afforded improved patient safety when compared with a single check process.

Methods: The initiative was completed at a 24-bed pediatric intensive care unit and included all patients who were on the unit and received a medication historically requiring an IDC. The total review examined 37,968 high-risk medications administrations to 4417 pediatric intensive care unit patients over a 40-month period. The following 5 measures were reviewed: (1) rates of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications; (2) hospital length of stay; (3) patient mortality; (4) nurses' favorability toward single checking; and (5) nursing time spent on administration of IDC medications.

Results: The rate of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications was not significantly different across the groups (95% confidence interval, 0.02%-0.08%; P = 0.4939). The intervention also did not significantly alter mortality ( P = 0.8784) or length of stay ( P = 0.4763) even after controlling for the patient demographic variables. Nursing favorability for single checking increased from 59% of nurses in favor during the double check phase, to 94% by the end of the single check phase. Each double check took an average of 9.7 minutes, and a single check took an average of 1.94 minutes.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that performing independent double checks on high-risk medications administered in a pediatric ICU setting afforded no impact on reported medication events compared with single checking.

评估儿科重症监护室的独立双重检查:人因工程学方法。
目标这项以人为工程学为主导的改进措施旨在研究,与单一检查流程相比,在使用高度警戒药物时进行独立双重检查(IDC)是否能提高患者安全:该项目在一家拥有 24 张床位的儿科重症监护病房完成,包括该病房所有接受过需要 IDC 的药物治疗的患者。在 40 个月的时间里,共对 4417 名儿科重症监护病房患者的 37968 次高风险用药进行了检查。审查了以下 5 项指标:(1) 报告的涉及 IDC 用药的用药事件发生率;(2) 住院时间;(3) 患者死亡率;(4) 护士对单次检查的好感度;(5) 用于 IDC 用药的护理时间:各组间报告的涉及 IDC 药物的用药事件发生率无显著差异(95% 置信区间,0.02%-0.08%;P = 0.4939)。即使在控制了患者人口统计学变量后,干预也没有明显改变死亡率(P = 0.8784)或住院时间(P = 0.4763)。护士对单一检查的支持率从双重检查阶段的 59% 增加到单一检查阶段结束时的 94%。每次双重检查平均耗时 9.7 分钟,单次检查平均耗时 1.94 分钟:我们的研究结果表明,与单次检查相比,在儿科重症监护室环境中对高风险用药进行独立的双人检查对报告的用药事件没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信