Insights from the sharp end of intravenous medication errors: implications for infusion pump technology.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) medication errors are a common type of error identified in hospitals and can lead to considerable harm. Over the past 20 years there have been several hundred FDA reported incidents involving IV pumps, many of which have led to patient deaths. OBJECTIVE: To determine the actual types, frequency, and severity of medication errors associated with IV pumps. To evaluate the likelihood that smart pump technology without an interface to other systems could have prevented errors. METHODS: Using a point prevalence approach, investigators prospectively compared the medication, dose, and infusion rate on the IV pump with the prescribed medication, doses, and rate in the medical record. Preventability with smart pump technology was retrospectively determined based on a rigorous definition of currently available technology. RESULTS: A total of 426 medications were observed infusing through an IV pump. Of these, 285 (66.9%) had one or more errors associated with their administration. There were 389 documented errors overall; 37 were "rate deviation" errors and three of these were judged to be due to a programming mistake. Most of the documented events would not have caused patient harm (NCC MERP category C). Only one error would have been prevented by smart pump technology without additional interface and software capabilities. CONCLUSION: Medication errors associated with IV pumps occur frequently, have the potential to cause harm, and are epidemiologically diverse. Smart pumps are a necessary component of a comprehensive safe medication system. However, currently available smart pumps will fail to generate meaningful improvements in patient safety until they can be interfaced with other systems such as the electronic medical record, computerized prescriber order entry, bar coded medication administration systems, and pharmacy information systems. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of new technology in preventing latent and active errors, and on new types of error that any technology can introduce.

The incidence of antimicrobial allergies in hospitalized patients: implications regarding prescribing patterns and emerging bacterial resistance.

BACKGROUND: The development of antimicrobial guidelines is one way in which institutions attempt to control emerging resistance, but the real challenge falls on promoting and ensuring adherence to these guidelines. Investigating reasons for the prescribing of alternative antimicrobial agents outside of these guidelines is crucial for modifying practices that may adversely impact institutional antimicrobial goals. METHODS: Retrospective cross-referencing of computerized pharmacy printouts and concurrent manual medical record review. RESULTS: Approximately 25% (470/1893) of the patients requiring antimicrobial therapy reported an allergy to at least 1 antimicrobial agent. The most commonly reported antimicrobial allergy was penicillin (295/1893 [15.6%]). Eighty-five patients (18.1%) reported having an allergy to 2 or more antimicrobial agents. Only 4% (27/601) of the reported antimicrobial allergies contained documentation as to the nature of the specific allergic reactions, while a manual medical record review revealed that 32% (23/73) of the antimicrobial allergies contained documentation of the specific allergic reaction. Ninety-eight (39. 7%) of 247 patients reporting an allergy only to penicillin and/or cephalosporin received vancomycin in comparison with 247 (17.4%) of 1423 patients without any antimicrobial allergies (P<.001). Similarly, 53 (21.5%) of 247 patients with reported penicillin and/or cephalosporin allergies received levofloxacin compared with 114 (8.0%) of 1423 patients without any antimicrobial allergy (P<. 001). CONCLUSION: The incidence of penicillin allergy at our institution exceeds population averages. This finding, in combination with limited documentation of drug allergies, appears to lead to the prescribing of alternative antimicrobial agents that do not fit into institutional antimicrobial guidelines and, in some instances, may put the patient at risk for infection and/or colonization with resistant organisms. Use of these alternative agents may adversely impact the ability to manage emerging antimicrobial resistance.