Independent Double Checks Research Articles

Independent Double Checks in the ICU: A Word of Caution.

Independent Double Checks in the ICU: A Word of Caution.

Evaluating Independent Double Checks in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Human Factors Engineering Approach.

The goal of this human factors engineering-led improvement initiative was to examine whether the independent double check (IDC) during administration of high alert medications afforded improved patient safety when compared with a single check process. The initiative was completed at a 24-bed pediatric intensive care unit and included all patients who were on the unit and received a medication historically requiring an IDC. The total review examined 37,968 high-risk medications administrations to 4417 pediatric intensive care unit patients over a 40-month period. The following 5 measures were reviewed: (1) rates of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications; (2) hospital length of stay; (3) patient mortality; (4) nurses' favorability toward single checking; and (5) nursing time spent on administration of IDC medications. The rate of reported medication administration events involving IDC medications was not significantly different across the groups (95% confidence interval, 0.02%-0.08%; P = 0.4939). The intervention also did not significantly alter mortality ( P = 0.8784) or length of stay ( P = 0.4763) even after controlling for the patient demographic variables. Nursing favorability for single checking increased from 59% of nurses in favor during the double check phase, to 94% by the end of the single check phase. Each double check took an average of 9.7 minutes, and a single check took an average of 1.94 minutes. Our results suggest that performing independent double checks on high-risk medications administered in a pediatric ICU setting afforded no impact on reported medication events compared with single checking.

Developing a Comprehensive Framework of Safeguarding Strategies to Address Anticipated Errors With Organizational High-Alert Medications.

Purpose: To describe the development of a comprehensive framework of safeguarding strategies to address observed/anticipated errors with organizational high-alert medications. Methods: Observed/anticipated errors were identified for organizational high-alert medications and medication classes based on a review of external literature and alerts as well as internal voluntary error reporting. Anticipated or frequently reported errors were categorized into common cause error types. Error reduction strategies to address each common cause error were identified in collaboration with medication safety specialists and specialty practice pharmacists. Results: The review of externally and internally reported errors identified 101 observed/anticipated common cause errors across the 19 high-alert medication classes (median 5 error types per medication class, interquartile range 3-6). Safeguarding strategies specific to high-alert medications were identified in the following domains: separate or sequestered storage; restricted ordering; active alerts; dispensing in patient-specific dosing, unit of use, or unit-dose packaging; dispensing from pharmacy only; auxiliary labeling; level of care restriction; required monitoring; independent double checks; certification/privileging of staff; specific guidelines for use/monitoring; and other/miscellaneous. Identification of the observed/anticipated errors and the associated safeguarding strategies facilitated the development of a comprehensive tool and visual framework for addressing common cause errors associated with organizational high-alert medications. Conclusion: A comprehensive framework of safeguarding strategies to address anticipated errors with organizational high-alert medications is proposed. Although individual safeguards are institution-specific, the framework can be leveraged by all hospitals in order to take inventory of error-reduction strategies and prospectively identify gaps to address common cause errors.

Independent Double-check of Infusion Pump Programming: An Anesthesia Improvement Effort to Reduce harm.

Significant adverse drug events (ADEs) due to anesthesia infusion pump programming errors were reported at our institution. We incorporated independent two-provider infusion pump programming verification, an evidence-supported intervention, into our anesthesia medication infusion process with a goal of reducing associated ADEs to zero in 2 years. Using the model for improvement, we developed key drivers and interventions and utilized plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Drivers included education and training, verification process, visual aids, information technology, and safety culture. Interventions included anesthesia provider training, information dissemination, independent two-provider verification process of smart pump programming, verification documentation capability, verification compliance tracking, and visual aids. Our outcome measures were relevant ADEs and near-miss events. Process and balancing measures were the percentage of smart pump programs with independent second verification and delayed case starts due to second provider verification, respectively. During the project period, only one related grade E ADE occurred, and the root cause was not conducting an independent pump programming verification. Thirteen grade B near-miss events were prevented due to independent second verification. Second verification adherence reached 85% and was sustained, and no delayed case starts occurred. With structured quality improvement methods, the process of independent two-provider verification of infusion pump programming during anesthesia can be successfully implemented, and errors in a high-volume setting reduced without negatively affecting case start times. The cultural and organizational factors we report may aid other institutions in gaining project buy-in and sustainment.

Medication errors in Najran, Saudi Arabia: Reporting, responsibility, and characteristics: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundMedication error is a preventable adverse effect of medical care, whether or not it is evident or harmful to the patient. Disclosure of medication errors and improvement of patient safety are inexorably related, and they provide one of the strongest reasons to report and disclose errors, including near misses in which no harm comes to the patient. This study aimed to identify medication errors at the southern province of Saudi Arabia. MethodsA cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted by reviewing all medical records in the King Khaled Hospital in Najran, Saudi Arabia. Medication errors related information were extracted from the electronic medical system for the duration between 2018 and 2020. ResultsDuring the study period of 2018 to 2020, a total of 4860 medication errorswere identified. More than half of the reported medicationerrors (66.9%) were linked to ordering, prescribing, or transcribing medications. The most commonly reported medicationerrors connected to ordering/prescribing/transcribing were inappropriate dosage, dosage units, and therapeutic duplication of medication. The most commonly reported medication errors linked to administration were missing documentation during administration, not performing independent double-checks during the administration of high alert medications, and the administration of look-alike sound-alike (LASA) medications. The intensive care unit (ICU), female medical ward, and male medical ward were the most commonly reported locations for medication errors. Pharmacists detected more than half of the reported medication errors. Physicians were found to be responsible for 66.0% of reported medication errors, followed by nurses. ConclusionMedication errors are common in hospital settings in Saudi Arabia's southern provinces. Efforts should be made to improve drug ordering, prescribing, and transcription in hospital settings. To guarantee optimum practices, the entire medical team should take responsibility for the patient's optimal medication administration.

The Effect of Independent Double Check Implementation against the Six Correction Principle in Preparation and Administration of Injected Medication on Inpatients X Hospital, West Java

The study was conducted from March until June 2021. The number of nurses involved were: 39 first nurses and 33 second nurses. The research data were analysed using SPSS program version 25. The implementation of IDC on 5895 injected medication affected right time (p=0.000) and right documentation (p=0.041) in preparation of medication. IDC has a partial or simultaneous effect with the characteristics of the first nurse on the right dose and right time in preparation of drugs (p = 0.000). IDC also affects the right dose, right time and right documentation in administration of injected medication (p<0.05). The characteristics of the first nurse's education had a partial effect on right documentation in preparation and administration of drugs, and right time in administration of injected medication (p<0.05). Nurses' work experience also had a partial effect on right documentation in administration of injected medication (p= 0.001). IDC implementation reduces ME < 5%.

Extension of Intravenous Tubing and Pumps Outside Rooms for Safety and Efficiency.

Extension of Intravenous Tubing and Pumps Outside Rooms for Safety and Efficiency.

Description of the role of pharmacist independent double checks during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy.

To describe pharmacist interventions as a result of an independent double check during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy. A single-center, retrospective analysis of all individual orders for outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer agents within a hematology/oncology infusion center during a 30 day period was conducted. The primary endpoint was error identification rates during first and second verification. Secondary endpoints included the type, frequency, and severity of errors identified during second verification using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index. A total of 1970 anti-cancer parenteral orders were screened, from which 1645 received an independent double check and were included. The number of errors identified during first and second verification were 30 (1.8%) and 10 (0.6%) respectively; second verification resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. The 10 errors identified during second verification included: four rate transcriptions to optimize pump interoperability, three rate and/or volume modifications, two dosage adjustments, and one treatment deferral due to toxicity. The severity was classified as Category A for four (40%), Category C for three (30%), and Category D for three (30%) errors. This correlated to a low capacity for harm for seven (70%) and a serious capacity for three (30%) errors. Second verification of outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer medication orders resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. Three errors detected during second verification were determined to have a serious capacity for harm, supporting the value of independent double checks during pharmacist cognitive order verification.

NURSES’ COMPLIANCE IN APPLYING INDEPENDENT DOUBLE CHECK IN DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Independent Double Check (IDC) is a strategy that plays a key role in medication safety. Studies have shown that its use can detect up to 95% of medication errors reducing incidents related to drug administration. Despite this benefit, not all nurses have implemented it. This study aims to describe nurses’ compliance in applying IDC at a private hospital in West Indonesia. The study used the descriptive quantitative method and purposive sampling was utilized in choosing 52 respondents. Data were collected from the respondents working in two inpatient wards where the highest number of medication errors occurred. A checklist was used to observe the nurses administer medications to patients in three occasions. The analysis of data employed univariate analysis method. The results showed that 35 (67.3%) of the respondents implemented IDC before medication administration, while 17 (32.7%) did not implement it. However, those who implemented IDC did not contribute to the reduction of medication errors in these wards. The authors recommend that further studies be conducted to investigate the factors associated with nurses’ compliance and non-compliance in applying IDC, and the relationship between nurses’ compliance to IDC and incidents of medication errors.

Medication errors: a focus on nursing practice

AbstractObjectivesHealth departments endeavor to give care to individuals to remain in healthy conditions. Medications errors (MEs), one of the most types of medical errors, could be venomous in clinical settings. Patients will be harmed physically and psychologically, in addition to adverse economic consequences. Reviewing and understanding the topic of medication error especially by nurses can help in advancing the medical services to patients.MethodsA search using search engines such as PubMed and Google scholar were used in finding articles related to the review topic.Key findingsThis review highlighted the classifications of MEs, their types, outcomes, reporting process, and the strategies of error avoidance. This summary can bridge and open gates of awareness on how to deal with and prevent error occurrences. It highlights the importance of reporting strategies as mainstay prevention methods for medication errors.ConclusionsMedication errors are classified based on multifaceted criteria and there is a need to standardize the recommendations and make them a central goal all over the globe for the best practice. Nurses are the frontlines of clinical settings, encouraged to be one integrated body to prevent the occurrence of medication errors. Thus, systemizing the guidelines are required such as education and training, independent double checks, standardized procedures, follow the five rights, documentation, keep lines of communication open, inform patients of drug they receive, follow strict guidelines, improve labeling and package format, focus on the work environment, reduce workload, ways to avoid distraction, fix the faulty system, enhancing job security for nurses, create a cultural blame-free workspace, as well as hospital administration, should support and revise processes of error reporting, and spread the awareness of the importance of reporting.

Current state assessment of the organization and delivery of systemic treatment in Ontario.

20 Background: In 2019, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) published 54 standards to ensure high quality and safe delivery of systemic treatment (ST) in Ontario, along with 16 recommendations for take-home cancer drugs (THCD). The standards/recommendations focused on 7 domains for the delivery of ST delivery and 8 domains for THCD. These domains varied between the two documents but also overlapped on issues including prescribing, patient care, patient education and training and education for providers. The standards for ST delivery were also prioritized according to Very High, High or Medium priority with regards to implementation expectations. The objective of this project was to obtain a baseline assessment of alignment with the standards/recommendations for all ST sites within Ontario. Methods: A validated electronic survey that linked to all standards/recommendations was distributed to 75 ST sites in August 2019. Sites had 8 weeks to complete the survey with their multi-disciplinary teams. Data was analyzed centrally using quantitative analysis methods by region as well as by site level. Results: The response rate was 100%. Overall, alignment in all domains was higher for intravenous cancer drug (IVCD) delivery as compared to THCD delivery. Important areas of gaps include CPOE/PPO use (75% for both IVCD and THCD); appropriate drug labels (90% for IVCD versus 52% for THCD); prescribing/dispensing independent double checks (IDC) (95% for IVCD versus 38% for THCD); pump independent double check (83% of sites); continuous ST with central line (86% of sites); standardized tool for THCD education (40%); and oncology training/education (96% of RNs versus 20% of pharmacists). Conclusions: The main gaps that were identified through the current state assessment were related to THCD, as opposed to IVCD. To ensure alignment with the standards/recommendations, these gaps should continue to be an area of focus for quality improvement. The survey was instrumental in informing provincial, regional, and local strategies to address these gaps and to ensure high quality, safe practices are embedded in ST delivery as outlined in the published best practice documents.

Medication Safety and the Independent Double Check: A Work System Analysis and Reliability Engineering Theory Review

Double checking is a standard practice in many areas of healthcare, despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that it is hard to do, and ineffective as a safety measure. We ask here: ‘What are the work system barriers that make IDC so ineffective?’ and, ‘What does the literature say about double-checking as a safety measure in sociotechnical systems?’

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

BackgroundDouble-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or...

Effectiveness of Structured Teaching Programme on Knowledge Regarding Independent Double Check for High Alert Medications among Nurses

Effectiveness of Structured Teaching Programme on Knowledge Regarding Independent Double Check for High Alert Medications among Nurses

A Quality Initiative: A System-Wide Reduction in Serious Medication Events Through Targeted Simulation Training.

Medication administration events (MAEs) are a great concern to the healthcare industry, because they are both common and costly. Pediatric patients pose unique challenges to healthcare systems, particularly regarding the safety of medication administration. Our objectives were to improve adherence to best practices, decrease MAEs, and decrease cost related to error reduction rates by implementing a scenario-based simulation training program for frontline nursing staff in the general care units, emergency departments, and intensive care units within our institution. Children's simulation center in conjunction with the medication safety workgroup developed a 2-hour target-specific simulation-based training. This quality initiative focused on implementation of a MAE bundle that included the following three elements: The Five Rights, MedZone, and Independent Double Check. Adherence to the use of bundle elements was monitored via bedside auditing for 18 months after the intervention. This audit was accomplished using an institution-wide MAE reporting system. The 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database and 2014 Children's Hospital Association, Pediatric Health Information System databases were used to estimate cost impact. A total of 1434 nurses from our intensive care units, emergency departments, and general care inpatient units participated in simulation training. Nursing adherence to the MAE bundle in the 18-month period after simulation increased by 33%, from January 2014 to June 2015. Medication administration event monitoring during the preintervention, intervention, and postintervention periods demonstrated a decrease in error rate from 2.5 events per month to 0.86 events per month This error reduction correlated to an estimated charge savings of $165,000 to $255,000 and a cost impact of $90,000 to $130,000 per year. Target-specific simulation-based training on a large scale has improved adherence with best practice guidelines and has led to a significant reduction in MAEs.

The effect of independent double-check for preventing loafing

The effect of independent double-check for preventing loafing

Human-error prevention effect of independent double-check

Human-error prevention effect of independent double-check

Administering and monitoring high-alert medications in acute care.

The nurse's primary role in the medication process is to ensure that drugs are administered safely to patients, thus reducing the risk of unnecessary harm or injury. High-alert medications are a particular concern for healthcare professionals, since they are associated with an increased risk of causing patient harm. This article identifies high-risk medications and outlines measures that can be used to prevent potential harm to patients as a result of these medications, including computerised provider order entry, Tall Man lettering, order sets, independent double-checks and proactive patient monitoring.

Position Statement on Heparin Safety Concerns.

Position Statement on Heparin Safety Concerns.

Reliability of chemotherapy preparation processes: Evaluating independent double-checking and computer-assisted gravimetric control.

Background and objectives Centralized chemotherapy preparation units have established systematic strategies to avoid errors. Our work aimed to evaluate the accuracy of manual preparations associated with different control methods. Method A simulation study in an operational setting used phenylephrine and lidocaine as markers. Each operator prepared syringes that were controlled using a different method during each of three sessions (no control, visual double-checking, and gravimetric control). Eight reconstitutions and dilutions were prepared in each session, with variable doses and volumes, using different concentrations of stock solutions. Results were analyzed according to qualitative (choice of stock solution) and quantitative criteria (accurate, <5% deviation from the target concentration; weakly accurate, 5%-10%; inaccurate, 10%-30%; wrong, >30% deviation). Results Eleven operators carried out 19 sessions. No final preparation (n = 438) contained a wrong drug. The protocol involving no control failed to detect 1 of 3 dose errors made and double-checking failed to detect 3 of 7 dose errors. The gravimetric control method detected all 5 out of 5 dose errors. The accuracy of the doses measured was equivalent across the control methods ( p = 0.63 Kruskal-Wallis). The final preparations ranged from 58% to 60% accurate, 25% to 27% weakly accurate, 14% to 17% inaccurate and 0.9% wrong. A high variability was observed between operators. Discussion Gravimetric control was the only method able to detect all dose errors, but it did not improve dose accuracy. A dose accuracy with <5% deviation cannot always be guaranteed using manual production. Automation should be considered in the future.