Co-administration of multiple intravenous medicines: Intensive care nurses' views and perspectives.
co-administration
compatibility
functional resonance analysis method
intravenous
Journal
Nursing in critical care
ISSN: 1478-5153
Titre abrégé: Nurs Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9808649
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2019
revised:
25
11
2019
accepted:
20
12
2019
pubmed:
18
1
2020
medline:
14
1
2021
entrez:
18
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Co-administration of multiple intravenous (IV) medicines down the same lumen of an IV catheter is often necessary in the intensive care unit (ICU) while ensuring medicine compatibility. This study explores ICU nurses' views on the everyday practice surrounding co-administration of multiple IV medicines down the same lumen. Qualitative study using focus group interviews. Three focus groups were conducted with 20 ICU nurses across two hospitals in the Thames Valley Critical Care Network, England. Participants' experience of co-administration down the same lumen and means of assessing compatibility were explored. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Functional Resonance Analysis Method was used to provide a visual representation of the co-administration process. Two key themes were identified as essential during the process of co-administration, namely, venous access and resources. Most nurses described insufficient venous access and lack of compatibility data for commonly used medicines (eg, analgesics and antibiotics) as particular challenges. Strategies such as obtaining additional venous access, prioritizing infusions, and swapping line of infusion were used to manage IV administration problems where medicines were incompatible, or of unknown or variable compatibility. Nurses use several workarounds to manage commonly encountered medication compatibility problems that may lead to delays in therapy. Organizations should review and tailor compatibility resources towards commonly administered medicines using an interdisciplinary approach. Developing a clinical decision-making pathway to minimise variability while promoting safe co-administration practice should be prioritised. This study highlights several ways ICU nurses are able to manage challenges associated with co-administration and the need for the development of a more robust and comprehensive compatibility resource that is relevant to everyday practice through collaboration between nurses and pharmacists.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Co-administration of multiple intravenous (IV) medicines down the same lumen of an IV catheter is often necessary in the intensive care unit (ICU) while ensuring medicine compatibility.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This study explores ICU nurses' views on the everyday practice surrounding co-administration of multiple IV medicines down the same lumen.
DESIGN
Qualitative study using focus group interviews.
METHODS
Three focus groups were conducted with 20 ICU nurses across two hospitals in the Thames Valley Critical Care Network, England. Participants' experience of co-administration down the same lumen and means of assessing compatibility were explored. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Functional Resonance Analysis Method was used to provide a visual representation of the co-administration process.
RESULTS
Two key themes were identified as essential during the process of co-administration, namely, venous access and resources. Most nurses described insufficient venous access and lack of compatibility data for commonly used medicines (eg, analgesics and antibiotics) as particular challenges. Strategies such as obtaining additional venous access, prioritizing infusions, and swapping line of infusion were used to manage IV administration problems where medicines were incompatible, or of unknown or variable compatibility.
CONCLUSIONS
Nurses use several workarounds to manage commonly encountered medication compatibility problems that may lead to delays in therapy. Organizations should review and tailor compatibility resources towards commonly administered medicines using an interdisciplinary approach. Developing a clinical decision-making pathway to minimise variability while promoting safe co-administration practice should be prioritised.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
This study highlights several ways ICU nurses are able to manage challenges associated with co-administration and the need for the development of a more robust and comprehensive compatibility resource that is relevant to everyday practice through collaboration between nurses and pharmacists.
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
156-164Subventions
Organisme : University of Reading
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses.
Références
Trissel L. Hanbook of Injectable Drugs. 20th ed. Bethseda, MD: American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists; 2018.
Newton DW. Drug incompatibility chemistry. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:348-357. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp080059.
Collins JL, Lutz RJ. In vitro study of simultaneous infusion of incompatible drugs in multilumen catheters. Heart Lung. 1991;20:271-277.
Robinson RG, Fawcett CA, van Rij AM. Multiple central venous line occlusions following an error in parenteral nutrition formulation. Aust N Z J Surg. 1986;56:347-349.
Steadman E, Raisch DW, Bennett CL, et al. Evaluation of a potential clinical interaction between ceftriaxone and calcium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:1534-1540. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01111-09.
Tissot E, Cornette C, Limat S, et al. Observational study of potential risk factors of medication administration errors. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25:264-268. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHAR.0000006519.44483.a0.
Bradley JS, Wassel RT, Lee L, Nambiar S. Intravenous ceftriaxone and calcium in the neonate: assessing the risk for cardiopulmonary adverse events. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4):609-613. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-3080.
Dalton BR, Zuege DJ, Shahpori R, Laupland KB. Concomitant ceftriaxone and high-concentration intravenous calcium therapy in adult critical care patients: a matched cohort study. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:1158-1163. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1M745.
Felton TW, McCormick BA, Finfer SR, Fisher MM. Life-threatening pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure complicating calcium and phosphate replacement in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesia. 2006;61(1):49-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04381.x.
Benlabed M, Perez M, Gaudy R, Genay S, et al. Clinical implications of intravenous drug incompatibilities in critically ill patients. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2018;38:173-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACCPM.2018.04.003.
Reedy JS, Kuhlman JE, Voytovich M. Microvascular pulmonary emboli secondary to precipitated crystals in a patient receiving total parenteral nutrition: a case report and description of the high-resolution CT findings. Chest. 1999;115:892-895.
Braun Hospital Guidlines (2015) Drug Incompatibility: Prevention of Risk in Infusion Therapy. Available at: www.safeinfusiontherapy.com.
Kupiec TC, Ben M, Trusley C, Trissel LA. Compatibility and stability of palonosetron hydrochloride with gentamicin, metronidazole, or vancomycin during simulated y-site administration. Int J Pharm Compd. 2008;12:170-173.
Machotka O, Manak J, Kubena A, Vlcek J. Incidence of intravenous drug incompatibilities in intensive care units. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Republic. 2015;159:652-656. https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2014.057.
Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, et al. The critical care safety study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1694-1700.
So W, Kim L, Thabit AK, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL. Physical compatibility of isavuconazonium sulfate with select i.v. drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74:55-63. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150733.
Kanji S, Lam J, Goddard RD, et al. Inappropriate medication administration practices in Canadian adult ICUs: a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:637-643. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1R414.
Righi AW, Saurin TA. Complex socio-technical systems: characterization and management guidelines. Appl Ergon. 2015;50:19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.003.
Hollnagel E, Slater D. (2018). The Functional Resonance Analysis Method and Manual (Version 2). Available at: http://functionalresonance.com/onewebmedia/Manual%20ds%201.docx.pdf
Raben DC, Viskum B, Mikkelsen KL, Hounsgaard J, Bogh SB, Hollnagel E. Application of a non-linear model to understand healthcare processes: using the functional resonance analysis method on a case study of the early detection of sepsis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 2018;177:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2018.04.023.
Furniss D, Curzon P, Blandford A. Using FRAM beyond safety: a case study to explore how sociotechnical systems can flourish or stall. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2016;17:507-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2016.1155238.
Ross A, Sherriff A, Kidd J, et al. A systems approach using the functional resonance analysis method to support fluoride varnish application for children attending general dental practice. Appl Ergon. 2018;68:294-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.005.
Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:299-302. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.311.7000.299.
Tausch AP, Menold N. Methodological aspects of focus groups in health research: results of qualitative interviews with focus group moderators. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2016;14:3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393616630466.
Breen RL. A practical guide to focus-group research. J Geogr High Educ. 2006;30(3):463-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260600927575.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77-101.
Maison O, Tardy C, Cabelguenne D, et al. Drug incompatibilities in intravenous therapy: evaluation and proposition of preventive tools in intensive care and hematology units. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75:179-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-018-2602-6.
Lalley C, Malloch K. Workarounds: the hidden pathway to excellence. Nurse Lead. 2010;8:29-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2010.05.009.
Niazkhani Z, Pirnejad H, van der Sijs H, Aarts J. Evaluating the medication process in the context of CPOE use: the significance of working around the system. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80:490-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2011.03.009.
Halbesleben JRB, Savage GT, Wakefield DS, Wakefield BJ. Rework and workarounds in nurse medication administration process. Health Care Manage Rev. 2010;35:124-133. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181d116c2.
Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL, Karsh BT. Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:408-423. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2616.
Tucker AL, Edmondson AC, Spear S. When problem solving prevents organizational learning. J Organ Change Manage. 2002;15:122-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210423008.
Westbrook JI, Rob MI, Woods A, Parry D. Errors in the administration of intravenous medications in hospital and the role of correct procedures and nurse experience. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:1027-1034. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000089.
Rapid Response Report NPSA/2010/RRR009: reducing harm from omitted and delayed medicines in hospital Supporting Information, 2010. Available at: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/NRLS-1183-Omitted-and-del-SI-2010.02.23-FINAL.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2018.
Amorim AG, Pereira CM. Improvisation at workplace and accident causation - an exploratory study. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:1804-1811. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2015.07.219.
Hollnagel E, Wears RL, Braithwaite J. From Safety-I to Safety-II: A White Paper. The Resilient Health Care Net: Published simultaneously by the University of Southern Denmark, University of Florida, USA, and Macquarie University, Australia, 2015. https://www.england.nhs.uk/signuptosafety/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2015/10/safety-1-safety-2-whte-papr.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2018.
Banning M. A review of clinical decision making: models and current research. J Clin Nurs. 2008;2:187-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01791.x.
Fogarty GJ, Mckeon CM. Patient safety during medication administration: the influence of organizational and individual variables on unsafe work practices and medication errors. Ergonomics. 2006;49:444-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600568410.
Ser G, Robertson A, Sheikh A. A qualitative exploration of workarounds related to the implementation of national electronic health records in early adopter mental health hospitals. PLoS One. 2014;9:e77669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077669.
Clay-Williams R, Hounsgaard J, Hollnagel E. Where the rubber meets the road: using FRAM to align work-as-imagined with work-as-done when implementing clinical guidelines. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0317-y.
Shakila B, Borthwick M, Cronnolly B, et al. Thames Valley Y-site Intravenous Drugs Compatibility Chart, 2011. http://medusa.wales.nhs.uk/Docs/TVCCNIVCompatibilityChartv2.1.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2017.
Kanji S, Lam J, Johanson C, et al. Systematic review of physical and chemical compatibility of commonly used medications administered by continuous infusion in intensive care units. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1890-1898. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181e8adcc.