In March 2007 and November 2009 the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) published safety alerts with regards to ‘promoting safer measurements and administration of liquid medicines via oral and other enteral routes’ and ‘safer spinal (intrathecal), epidural and regional devices’ [1–3]. These alerts were prompted by several serious incidents of wrong-route administration of drugs over the years. Several action plans have been suggested to reduce the risk of wrong-route administration of drugs. The main proposal is to create and implement a system of medical devices for each route that cannot physically connect to devices meant for another route. This means we have to stop using medical devices with the standard Luer connectors other than for one specific route (probably intravenous) [4]. The NPSA recommended that specific oral/enteral syringes should be in use by March 2008 and that spinal/epidural/regional needles and syringes with safe connectors should be in use by April 2012 [1–3]. But with several different companies producing a variety of medical devices, it is clear that there will be some connections overlooked. Cook et al. demonstrated this during their study to evaluate the usability of two alternative systems in 2010; following feedback the connectors have been modified [5]. However, this is still an ongoing issue: recently we discovered it is possible to connect an oral/enteral syringe to spinal devices with the Surety® connectors (Intervene Limited, Chesterfield, UK) and to connect a spinal/epidural/regional syringe with the Surety® connector to a paediatric nasogastric feeding tube. Both these situations can occur despite the devices’ having different connectors and without too much additional force (2, 3). The oral/enteral syringe connected to a spinal needle with the Surety® connector. The spinal/epidural/regional syringe with the Surety® connector connected to a paediatric nasogastric feeding tube. Although the possibility of having oral/enteral syringes within the clinical area whilst performing a spinal procedure and accidentally administering their contents is very remote, it is possible and has even been hinted at in the February 2011 Neuraxial Update [6]. We believe it is pointless to change from an existing system, with a rare but potentially catastrophic consequence, to another with a differing, rare but potentially catastrophic consequence. Thus, in the presence of the reverse Luer connectors of enteral feeding devices, the adoption of the Surety® non-Luer fittings cannot be recommended. The other issue in relation to the development of non-Luer connectors is the quality of the new devices. This has been highlighted in a Joint Statement published by our profession earlier this year, raising concerns that there will be an increased risk to patients undergoing anaesthesia due to the introduction of new neuraxial connectors into clinical practice in England and Scotland without formal testing [7]. Our opinion is that these issues rather defeat the whole idea behind the NPSA’s recommendation of a different fitting for devices meant for each different route. More time is needed to test the connectors thoroughly to ensure no cross-connectivity and to ensure a high quality product to deliver medications.
Read full abstract