How to use current practice, risk analysis and standards to define hospital-wide policies on the safe use of infusion technology

Annemoon M. Timmerman; Suzanne M. Oliveira-Martens; Roland A. Snijder; Anders K. Nieman; Toine C. Egberts

doi:10.1515/bmt-2014-0147

Article

How to use current practice, risk analysis and standards to define hospital-wide policies on the safe use of infusion technology

Annemoon M. Timmerman , Suzanne M. Oliveira-Martens , Roland A. Snijder , Anders K. Nieman and Toine C. Egberts

Published/Copyright: August 5, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Biomedical Engineering / Biomedizinische Technik Volume 60 Issue 4

Abstract

Infusion therapy is widely used in hospitals. It is well known that medication errors constitute one of the highest risks to patient safety, leading to numerous adverse events concerning incorrect application of infusion technology. Both clinical practice and in vitro studies show that infusion of multiple medications via one access point induces unwanted phenomena such as backflow and an incorrect system response to interventions. Within the Metrology for Drug Delivery project, we addressed the role of infusion devices in drug delivery. We surveyed current practices for application in hospitals to provide input to standards and quality norms for the materials used in infusion technology. Furthermore, we organized meetings with clinicians and other relevant stakeholders to set up a risk analysis-based infusion policy, accompanied by easy to access operating procedures on infusion technology. It was found difficult to establish clear-cut infusion safety guidelines based on quantitative data because of the many different application areas and stakeholders. However, both the expert team and the survey indicated the value of multidisciplinary qualitative discussion for defining best practices. We advise to incorporate specific requirements on infusion devices in protocols and standards, adjusted to specific applications, to ensure safe use of infusion technology.

Keywords: drug delivery; hospital policy; infusion therapy; medical devices; metrology; multi-infusion; quality assurance; standards

Corresponding author: Annemoon M. Timmerman, Department of Medical Technology and Clinical Physics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, Mail Stop C01.230, Utrecht, 3508 GA, The Netherlands, E-mail: a.m.d.e.timmerman@umcutrecht.nl

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the European Association of National Metrology Institutes (EURAMET) (grant EMRP REG No. HLT07-REG3 MeDD).

References

[1] Adachi W, Lodolce AE. Use of failure mode and effects analysis in improving the safety of i.v. drug administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005; 62: 917–920.10.1093/ajhp/62.9.917Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Available from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aami/files/production/public/FileDownloads/Summits/AAMI_FDA_Summit_Report.pdf. Accessed on 23 July, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Batista E, Almeida N, Furtado A, et al. Assessment of drug delivery devices. Biomed Eng-Biomed Tech 2015; 60: 347–357.10.1515/bmt-2014-0138Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Brady JL. First, do no harm: making infusion pumps safer. Biomed Instrum Technol 2010; 44: 372–380.10.2345/0899-8205-44.5.372Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Infusion pumps. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/GeneralHospitalDevicesandSupplies/InfusionPumps/default.htm. Accessed on 23 July, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Foinard A, Décaudin B, Barthélémy C, Lebuffe G, Debaene B, Odou P. Impact of infusion set characteristics on the accuracy of patient-controlled morphine administration: a controlled in-vitro study. Anaesthesia 2014; 69: 131–136.10.1111/anae.12523Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] High 5s Project. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/implementation/solutions/high5s/cim-sop.pdf?ua=1. Accessed on 23 July, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Hoes MF, Vaartjes SR, Gerdes BE, Bost TJM. FMT Gezondsheidszorg 2010; 10.10.1186/1471-2458-10-637Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Husch M, Sullivan C, Rooney D, et al. Insights from the sharp end of intravenous medication errors: implications for infusion pump technology. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 80–86.10.1136/qshc.2004.011957Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Iacovides I, Blandford A, Cox A, Franklin BD, Lee P, Vincent CJ. Infusion device standardisation and dose error reduction software. Br J Nursing 2014; 23: S16–S24.10.12968/bjon.2014.23.Sup14.S16Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Ishikawa K, Loftus JH, editors. Introduction to quality control. Tokyo, Japan: 3A Corporation 1990.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C, et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 2114–2120.10.1001/jama.285.16.2114Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Lucas P (coordinator). Metrology for Drug Delivery. EMRP Project 2012-2015. Available from: http://www.drugmetrology.com/survey/.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Fysica en Nederlandse Vereniging van Ziekenhuisapothekers, Utrecht: Omgaan met infusieapparatuur, beleid, toepassing en beheer. NVKF 1999.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Reason J. Human error: models and management. Br Med J 2000; 320: 768–770.10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Ross LM, Wallace J, Paton JY. Medication errors in a paediatric teaching hospital in the UK: five years operational experience. Arch Dis Childhood 2000; 83: 492–497.10.1136/adc.83.6.492Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Snijder RA, Timmerman AMDE. EMRP REG HLT07-REG3 JRP HLT07 MeDD D1.4, risk analysis and preventative measures. 2013. Available from: http://www.drugmetrology.com/index.php/project-page/cat_view/12-reg-3-procedures-and-protocols-for-infustion-technology. Accessed on 23 July, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Snijder RA, Konings MK, Lucas P, Egberts AC, Timmerman AM. Flow variability and its physical causes in infusion technology: a systematic review of in vitro measurement and modeling studies. Biomed Eng-Biomed Tech 2015; 60: 277–300.10.1515/bmt-2014-0148Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Staat van de gezondheidszorg “Risico’s van Medische Technologie onderschat”. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Timmerman AM, Snijder RA, Lucas P, Largerweij MC, Radermacher JH, Konings MK. How physical infusion system parameters cause clinically relevant dose deviations after setpoint changes. Biomed Eng-Biomed Tech 2015; 60: 365–376.10.1515/bmt-2014-0139Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Vaartjes SR, Timmerman AMDE, Bastin FH, Franken M, Teirlinck CJPM. Risicoprofiel Infusietechnologie. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Fysica Utrecht, en TNO Kwaliteit van Leven, Leiden, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Vaartjes SE, Wolbers PJA, Vaartjes SR. Risicoanalyse brandgevaar OK; Van model tot toepassing. Deel 1 en Deel 2. FMT Gezondheidszorg 2008; 4: 6–9.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-10-30

Accepted: 2015-7-20

Published Online: 2015-8-5

Published in Print: 2015-8-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2014-0147

Keywords for this article

drug delivery; hospital policy; infusion therapy; medical devices; metrology; multi-infusion; quality assurance; standards