Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2004 Aug;13(4):265–271. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2003.007443

Design of a safer approach to intravenous drug infusions: failure mode effects analysis

M Apkon 1, J Leonard 1, L Probst 1, L DeLizio 1, R Vitale 1
PMCID: PMC1743853  PMID: 15289629

Abstract

Objectives: A set of standard processes was developed for delivering continuous drug infusions in order to improve (1) patient safety; (2) efficiency in staff workflow; (3) hemodynamic stability during infusion changes, and (4) efficient use of resources. Failure modes effects analysis (FMEA) was used to examine the impact of process changes on the reliability of delivering drug infusions.

Setting: An 11 bed multidisciplinary pediatric ICU in the children's hospital of an academic medical center staffed by board certified pediatric intensivists. The hospital uses computerized physician order entry for all medication orders.

Methods: A multidisciplinary team characterized key elements of the drug infusion process. The process was enhanced to increase overall reliability and the original and revised processes were compared using FMEA. Resource consumption was estimated by reviewing purchasing and pharmacy records for the calendar year after full implementation of the revised process. Staff satisfaction was evaluated using an anonymous questionnaire administered to staff nurses in the ICU and pediatric residents who had rotated through the ICU.

Results: The original process was characterized by six elements: selecting the drug; selecting a dose; selecting an infusion rate; calculating and ordering the infusion; preparing the infusion; programming the infusion pump and delivering the infusion. The following practice changes were introduced: standardizing formulations for all infusions; developing database driven calculators; extending infusion hang times from 24 to 72 hours; changing from bedside preparation by nurses to pharmacy prepared or premanufactured solutions. FMEA showed that the last three elements of the original process had high risk priority numbers (RPNs) of >225 whereas the revised process had no elements with RPNs >100. The combined effect of prolonging infusion hang times, preparation in the pharmacy, and purchasing premanufactured solutions resulted in 1500 fewer infusions prepared by nurses per year. Nursing staff expressed a significant preference and pediatric residents unanimously expressed a strong preference for the revised process.

Conclusions: Standardization of infusion delivery reduced the frequency for completing the most unreliable elements of the process and reduced the riskiness of the individual elements. Both contribute to a safer system.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (190.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barker Kenneth N., Flynn Elizabeth A., Pepper Ginette A., Bates David W., Mikeal Robert L. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Sep 9;162(16):1897–1903. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.16.1897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates D. W., Cullen D. J., Laird N., Petersen L. A., Small S. D., Servi D., Laffel G., Sweitzer B. J., Shea B. F., Hallisey R. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995 Jul 5;274(1):29–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates D. W. Frequency, consequences and prevention of adverse drug events. J Qual Clin Pract. 1999 Mar;19(1):13–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1762.1999.00285.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayne T., Bindler R. Effectiveness of medication calculation enhancement methods with nurses. J Nurs Staff Dev. 1997 Nov-Dec;13(6):293–301. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bindler R., Bayne T. Medication calculation ability of registered nurses. Image J Nurs Sch. 1991 Winter;23(4):221–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1991.tb00675.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burgmeier Jean. Failure mode and effect analysis: an application in reducing risk in blood transfusion. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002 Jun;28(6):331–339. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(02)28033-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cullen D. J., Sweitzer B. J., Bates D. W., Burdick E., Edmondson A., Leape L. L. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997 Aug;25(8):1289–1297. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fortescue Elizabeth B., Kaushal Rainu, Landrigan Christopher P., McKenna Kathryn J., Clapp Margaret D., Federico Frank, Goldmann Donald A., Bates David W. Prioritizing strategies for preventing medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. Pediatrics. 2003 Apr;111(4 Pt 1):722–729. doi: 10.1542/peds.111.4.722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grissinger Matthew, Rich Darryl. JCAHO: meeting the standards for patient safety. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2002 Sep-Oct;42(5 Suppl 1):S54–S55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Koren G., Haslam R. H. Pediatric medication errors: predicting and preventing tenfold disasters. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994 Nov;34(11):1043–1045. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1994.tb01978.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lai K. K. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and i.v. tubing use from 72 hours to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control. 1998 Feb;26(1):66–70. doi: 10.1016/s0196-6553(98)70063-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lesar T. S., Briceland L., Stein D. S. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA. 1997 Jan 22;277(4):312–317. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lesar T. S. Errors in the use of medication dosage equations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 Apr;152(4):340–344. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.152.4.340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Maki D. G., Botticelli J. T., LeRoy M. L., Thielke T. S. Prospective study of replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour intervals. 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA. 1987 Oct 2;258(13):1777–1781. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Perlstein P. H., Callison C., White M., Barnes B., Edwards N. K. Errors in drug computations during newborn intensive care. Am J Dis Child. 1979 Apr;133(4):376–379. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1979.02130040030006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Potts M. J., Phelan K. W. Deficiencies in calculation and applied mathematics skills in pediatrics among primary care interns. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996 Jul;150(7):748–752. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170320094016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Raju T. N., Kecskes S., Thornton J. P., Perry M., Feldman S. Medication errors in neonatal and paediatric intensive-care units. Lancet. 1989 Aug 12;2(8659):374–376. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90548-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rolfe S., Harper N. J. Ability of hospital doctors to calculate drug doses. BMJ. 1995 May 6;310(6988):1173–1174. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6988.1173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Vincer M. J., Murray J. M., Yuill A., Allen A. C., Evans J. R., Stinson D. A. Drug errors and incidents in a neonatal intensive care unit. A quality assurance activity. Am J Dis Child. 1989 Jun;143(6):737–740. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150180119032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES