Evaluation of tools to prevent drug incompatibilities in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous drug administration in neonatal (NICU) and paediatric intensive care units (PICU) is critical because of poor venous access, polymedication, fluid restriction and low infusion rate. Risk is further increased by inadequate information on the physicochemical compatibility of drugs. Eight decision-supporting tools were hence evaluated to improve the detection of drug incompatibilities in paediatric wards. SETTING: NICU and PICU, University hospital. METHOD: Eight tools (Thériaque 2007, Stabilis 3, Perfysi 2 databases; KIK 3.0 software; Neofax 2007 handbook; King 2008 Guide, CHUV 9.0, pH 2007 cross-tables) were assessed by two pharmacists using 40 drug pairs (20 incompatible; 20 compatible) frequently prescribed in PICUs and NICUs. Trissel's 14th Ed. handbook served as the gold standard. Four criteria were evaluated (each with a maximum of 250 points): accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values), completeness (number of drug pairs documented), comprehensiveness (presence of 16 different items), and applicability (by combining the time needed by 7 pharmacists to classify 5 drug pairs, plus an evaluation of their design, usefulness, reliability and ergonomics, using visual analogy scales). The percentage of non-compliant answers (NCA) was calculated for both the performing pharmacists and the tools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Global score of drug incompatibilities (accuracy + completeness + comprehensiveness + applicability). RESULTS: Thériaque obtained the best global score (840/1000 points), followed by pH (807), CHUV (803), Perfysi (776), Neofax (678), King Guide (642), Stabilis (584) and KIK (523), respectively. The highest scores were reached by Thériaque for accuracy (234/250); Thériaque and pH for completeness (200/250); Thériaque and Perfysi for comprehensiveness (218/250); and pH for applicability (298/250). The range of pharmacists' NCAs was between 9% (4/45 NCAs) and 33% (15/45), whereas that for drug pairs was between 10% (6/63) and 30% (19/63). The range of NCAs for tools was between 6% (2/35, pH) and 49% (18/35, Perfysi). CONCLUSIONS: Thériaque proved outstanding as a drug-incompatibility tool. However, all resources showed some shortcomings. The large ranges of pharmacists' NCAs shows that such an assessment is subject to different interpretations. Standard operating procedures for drug-incompatibility assessment should be implemented in drug-information centres. Tools with low NCA percentage, such as the pH or CHUV tables, may be useful for nurses in ICUs.

Risk and pharmacoeconomic analyses of the injectable medication process in the paediatric and neonatal intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse safety risks in injectable medications. To assess the potential impact and pharmacoeconomic aspects of safety tools. DESIGN: The injectable drug process was prospectively assessed using a failure modes, effects and criticality analysis. Criticality indexes were estimated based on their likelihood of occurrence, detection probability and potential severity. The impact of 10 safety tools on the criticality index was calculated and extrapolated to all drugs injected daily. Yearly costs for a reduction in criticality by 1 point (=1 quali) per day were estimated. SETTING: Paediatric and neonatal intensive care units in a University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two paediatric nurses, a neonatologist, three hospital pharmacists. INTERVENTIONS: Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Failure modes, criticality indexes, cost-efficacy ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-one failure modes identified, with the mean of their entire criticality indexes totalling 4540. The most critical failure mode was microbial contamination. The following gains were predicted: 1292 quali (46 500 per day by extrapolation) from ready-to-use syringes, 1201 (72 060) by employing a clinical pharmacist, 996 (59 780) from double check by nurses and 984 (59 040) with computerized physician order entry. The best cost-efficacy ratios were obtained for a clinical pharmacist (1 quali = 0.54 euros), double check (1 quali = 0.71 euros) and ready-to-use syringes (1 quali = 0.72 euros). Computerized physician order entry showed the worst cost-efficacy ratio due to a very high investment costs (1 quali = 22.47 euros). CONCLUSION: Based on our risk and pharmacoeconomic analyses, clinical pharmacy and ready-to-use syringes appear as the most promising safety tools.