Abstract:Background Intravenous (IV) medication administration has traditionally been regarded to be error-prone with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed surprisingly few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. Objectives To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation in errors, discrepancies and practices, including the contribution of smart pumps. Design Phase 1 comprised an observational point-prevalence study of IV infusions, with debrief interviews and focus groups. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as either errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs, and analytically in supplementary analyses. Phase 2 comprised in-depth observational studies at five of the participating sites to better understand causes of error and how safety is maintained. Workshops were held with key stakeholder groups, including health professionals and policy-makers, the public and industry. Setting Sixteen English NHS hospital trusts. Results Point-prevalence data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. In total, 240 errors were observed in 231 infusions and 1489 discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions. Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; one might have resulted in short-term patient harm had it not been intercepted, but none was judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of deviations varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or to respond to patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect. Staff had developed practices to manage efficiency and safety pragmatically by working around systemic challenges. Limitations Local observers may have assessed errors differently across sites, although steps were taken to minimise differences through observer training, debriefs, and review and cleaning of data. Each in-depth study involved a single researcher, and these were limited in scale and scope. Conclusions Errors and discrepancies are common in everyday infusion administration but most have low potential for patient harm. Findings are best understood by viewing IV infusion administration as a complex adaptive system. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be more helpful for improving patient safety than striving to eliminate all deviations. Future work There is potential value in reviewing policy around IV infusion administration to reduce unnecessary variability, manage staff workload and engage patients, while retaining the principle that policy has to be fit for purpose, contextualised to the particular ward situation and treatment protocol, and sensitive to the risks of different medications. Further work on understanding infusion administration as a complex adaptive system might deliver new insights into managing patient safety. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research ; Vol. 8, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sources of preanalytical error in pharmacokinetic analyses – focus on intravenous drug administration and collection of blood samples

Strategies to mitigate bias from time recording errors in pharmacokinetic studies

Systematic evaluation of errors occurring during the preparation of intravenous medication

Intravenous infusion practices across England and their impact on patient safety: a mixed-methods observational study

Preanalytical Errors in Hematology: Insights From a Tertiary Care Hospital

Intravenous Infusion Administration: A Comparative Study of Practices and Errors Between the United States and England and Their Implications for Patient Safety

Critical parameters in drug delivery by intravenous infusion

Reducing intravenous infusion errors: an observational study of 16 866 patients over five years

A-209 Preanalytical Phase Errors Constitute the Vast Majority of Errors in Clinical Laboratory Testing

Order of blood draw: Opinion Paper by the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)

Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust

Pre-analytical issues in the haemostasis laboratory: guidance for the clinical laboratories

Attributes of errors, facilitators, and barriers related to rate control of IV medications: a scoping review

Evolution of Intravenous Medication Errors and Preventive Systemic Defenses in Hospital Settings—A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

Effect of Pre-Analytical Errors in Laboratory Testing Facilities: The Way Forward

How to get over with medication errors underestimation? Improving indices of medication errors with focus on intravenous medications in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting; a direct observation study

Incidence and prevalence of intravenous medication errors in the UK: a systematic review

Preanalytical Issues in Hemostasis and Thrombosis Testing

The stability of 65 biochemistry analytes in plasma, serum, and whole blood

Prospective Study Evaluating Whether Standard Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Can Be Used for Blood Collection Throughout Hospital Stay

Observational Study on Adherence to modified Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute H3-A6 Guidelines on Blood Sampling Procedures