{"title":"Comparison of safety and usability between peristaltic and pneumatic large-volume intravenous smart pumps during actual clinical use","authors":"D. Penoyer, K. Giuliano, Aurea Middleton","doi":"10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To describe and compare safety and usability between a peristaltic large-volume intravenous smart pump (IVSP) and a novel pneumatic large-volume IVSP during clinical use. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a large, tertiary hospital in the southeastern USA. Safety and usability were measured by observation during medication administration (medication administration error, interruptions, programming time), dose error reduction system (DERS) compliance, end-user surveys and compliance with manufacturer setup requirements. Study implementation began on a small pilot unit for 1 month, followed by data collection on the study unit over 2 months. Results For the observed medication administrations (N=158): 79 peristaltic (36 primary; 43 secondary) and 79 pneumatic (42 primary; 37 secondary), use of the peristaltic IVSP was associated with significantly (p<0.05) higher medication administration errors and programming time (11.9 s) and a significantly higher number of interruptions during programming. DERS compliance was significantly less (p<0.001) with the peristaltic (75.9%) as compared with the pneumatic IVSP (99.8%). Programming workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) was significantly (p=0.004) higher with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP, and the usability (System Usability Scale) was significantly (p=0.007) lower with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP. There was a 0% compliance with peristaltic secondary setup requirements in 43 observed infusions. Conclusions Though nurses had a high level of experience with the peristaltic IVSP, results of this study support that the pneumatic IVSP was easier to use and associated with fewer errors and deviations from safe practices as compared with the peristaltic IVSP.","PeriodicalId":53454,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Innovations","volume":"148 1","pages":"78 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Objective To describe and compare safety and usability between a peristaltic large-volume intravenous smart pump (IVSP) and a novel pneumatic large-volume IVSP during clinical use. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a large, tertiary hospital in the southeastern USA. Safety and usability were measured by observation during medication administration (medication administration error, interruptions, programming time), dose error reduction system (DERS) compliance, end-user surveys and compliance with manufacturer setup requirements. Study implementation began on a small pilot unit for 1 month, followed by data collection on the study unit over 2 months. Results For the observed medication administrations (N=158): 79 peristaltic (36 primary; 43 secondary) and 79 pneumatic (42 primary; 37 secondary), use of the peristaltic IVSP was associated with significantly (p<0.05) higher medication administration errors and programming time (11.9 s) and a significantly higher number of interruptions during programming. DERS compliance was significantly less (p<0.001) with the peristaltic (75.9%) as compared with the pneumatic IVSP (99.8%). Programming workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) was significantly (p=0.004) higher with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP, and the usability (System Usability Scale) was significantly (p=0.007) lower with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP. There was a 0% compliance with peristaltic secondary setup requirements in 43 observed infusions. Conclusions Though nurses had a high level of experience with the peristaltic IVSP, results of this study support that the pneumatic IVSP was easier to use and associated with fewer errors and deviations from safe practices as compared with the peristaltic IVSP.
期刊介绍:
Healthcare is undergoing a revolution and novel medical technologies are being developed to treat patients in better and faster ways. Mobile revolution has put a handheld computer in pockets of billions and we are ushering in an era of mHealth. In developed and developing world alike healthcare costs are a concern and frugal innovations are being promoted for bringing down the costs of healthcare. BMJ Innovations aims to promote innovative research which creates new, cost-effective medical devices, technologies, processes and systems that improve patient care, with particular focus on the needs of patients, physicians, and the health care industry as a whole and act as a platform to catalyse and seed more innovations. Submissions to BMJ Innovations will be considered from all clinical areas of medicine along with business and process innovations that make healthcare accessible and affordable. Submissions from groups of investigators engaged in international collaborations are especially encouraged. The broad areas of innovations that this journal aims to chronicle include but are not limited to: Medical devices, mHealth and wearable health technologies, Assistive technologies, Diagnostics, Health IT, systems and process innovation.