Experiences with Lean Six Sigma as improvement strategy to reduce parenteral medication administration errors and associated potential risk of harm.

BMJ quality improvement reports Pub Date : 2017-06-15 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjquality.u215011.w5936
Afke van de Plas, Mariëlle Slikkerveer, Saskia Hoen, Rick Schrijnemakers, Johanna Driessen, Frank de Vries, Patricia van den Bemt
{"title":"Experiences with Lean Six Sigma as improvement strategy to reduce parenteral medication administration errors and associated potential risk of harm.","authors":"Afke van de Plas,&nbsp;Mariëlle Slikkerveer,&nbsp;Saskia Hoen,&nbsp;Rick Schrijnemakers,&nbsp;Johanna Driessen,&nbsp;Frank de Vries,&nbsp;Patricia van den Bemt","doi":"10.1136/bmjquality.u215011.w5936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this controlled before-after study the effect of improvements, derived from Lean Six Sigma strategy, on parenteral medication administration errors and the potential risk of harm was determined. During baseline measurement, on control versus intervention ward, at least one administration error occurred in 14 (74%) and 6 (46%) administrations with potential risk of harm in 6 (32%) and 1 (8%) administrations. Most administration errors with high potential risk of harm occurred in bolus injections: 8 (57%) versus 2 (67%) bolus injections were injected too fast with a potential risk of harm in 6 (43%) and 1 (33%) bolus injections on control and intervention ward. Implemented improvement strategies, based on major causes of too fast administration of bolus injections, were: Substitution of bolus injections by infusions, education, availability of administration information and drug round tabards. Post intervention, on the control ward in 76 (76%) administrations at least one error was made (RR 1.03; CI95:0.77-1.38), with a potential risk of harm in 14 (14%) administrations (RR 0.45; CI95:0.20-1.02). In 40 (68%) administrations on the intervention ward at least one error occurred (RR 1.47; CI95:0.80-2.71) but no administrations were associated with a potential risk of harm. A shift in wrong duration administration errors from bolus injections to infusions, with a reduction of potential risk of harm, seems to have occurred on the intervention ward. Although data are insufficient to prove an effect, Lean Six Sigma was experienced as a suitable strategy to select tailored improvements. Further studies are required to prove the effect of the strategy on parenteral medication administration errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":91218,"journal":{"name":"BMJ quality improvement reports","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjquality.u215011.w5936","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ quality improvement reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u215011.w5936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

In this controlled before-after study the effect of improvements, derived from Lean Six Sigma strategy, on parenteral medication administration errors and the potential risk of harm was determined. During baseline measurement, on control versus intervention ward, at least one administration error occurred in 14 (74%) and 6 (46%) administrations with potential risk of harm in 6 (32%) and 1 (8%) administrations. Most administration errors with high potential risk of harm occurred in bolus injections: 8 (57%) versus 2 (67%) bolus injections were injected too fast with a potential risk of harm in 6 (43%) and 1 (33%) bolus injections on control and intervention ward. Implemented improvement strategies, based on major causes of too fast administration of bolus injections, were: Substitution of bolus injections by infusions, education, availability of administration information and drug round tabards. Post intervention, on the control ward in 76 (76%) administrations at least one error was made (RR 1.03; CI95:0.77-1.38), with a potential risk of harm in 14 (14%) administrations (RR 0.45; CI95:0.20-1.02). In 40 (68%) administrations on the intervention ward at least one error occurred (RR 1.47; CI95:0.80-2.71) but no administrations were associated with a potential risk of harm. A shift in wrong duration administration errors from bolus injections to infusions, with a reduction of potential risk of harm, seems to have occurred on the intervention ward. Although data are insufficient to prove an effect, Lean Six Sigma was experienced as a suitable strategy to select tailored improvements. Further studies are required to prove the effect of the strategy on parenteral medication administration errors.

Abstract Image

以精益六西格玛作为改进策略以减少肠外给药错误和相关潜在危害的经验。
在这项受控的前后对照研究中,确定了源自精益六西格玛策略的改进对肠外给药错误和潜在危害风险的影响。在基线测量期间,对照和干预病房中,14(74%)和6(46%)个给药组中至少发生一次给药错误,6(32%)和1(8%)个给药组中存在潜在危害风险。大多数具有高潜在危害风险的给药错误发生在丸剂注射中:8例(57%)和2例(67%)丸剂注射过快,在控制和干预病房分别有6例(43%)和1例(33%)丸剂注射存在潜在危害风险。实施的改进策略,基于丸状注射给药过快的主要原因,包括:以输液代替丸状注射、教育、给药信息的可得性和药物循环标准。干预后,76个(76%)医院的对照病房至少出现一次错误(RR 1.03;CI95:0.77-1.38),在14次(14%)给药中存在潜在危害风险(RR 0.45;ci95:0.20 - 1.02)。在40个(68%)干预病房的管理中至少发生了一次错误(RR 1.47;CI95:0.80-2.71),但没有任何药物与潜在的危害风险有关。在干预病房,错误持续时间给药错误从大剂量注射到输液的转变,减少了潜在的危害风险。虽然数据不足以证明效果,但精益六西格玛作为一种合适的策略来选择量身定制的改进。需要进一步的研究来证明该策略对肠外给药错误的影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信