Table 6:
Setting Up and Programming Multiple Primary Continuous IV Infusions: Performance Metrics and Analysis
| Performance Metrics and Analysis | Programming Error | Auxiliary Labelling Error | Task Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Programmed rate after the line change was not equivalent to programmed rate before the line changea | Label on IV tubing or pump contained incorrect information (e.g., wrong drug, wrong access port) | Time from when the first IV container was hung to when the new multiport connector was attached to the patient and all 4 new infusions started |
| Time to respond to the planned interruption (initiated by the confederate nurse) and any other unplanned non-task time (e.g., if participant asked the confederate nurse a question) was deducted from the total task timeb | |||
| Performance metric (per participant per condition) | Number of programming errors (maximum of 3) | Number of auxiliary labelling errors (maximum of 4) | Total task time (seconds) |
| Analysis | |||
| Number of participants included in the analysis | 20c | 6d | 20c |
| Opportunities for error per condition | 60 (3 errors per line change; 1 line change per participant per condition) | 24 (4 errors per line change; 1 line change per participant per condition) | No errors possible |
| Time recorded for 1 line change per participant per condition | |||
| Statistical test (performance metric as a function of experimental condition) | Paired sample (dependent) t-test | NA (statistical analysis not conducted, since no errors were made in either condition) | Paired sample (dependent) t-test |
Abbreviations: IV, intravenous; NA, not applicable; VTBI, volume to be infused.
Allowances were made to account for minor flow rate differences observed, depending on whether the participant used the pump calculator (which was restricted to 2 decimal points), manually calculated the flow rate using the provided calculator, or used the flow rates in the provided patient documentation. The VTBI programmed by participants was not included as a programming metric, since for a continuous IV infusion, the flow rate determines the dose rate.
lf the interruption time was not collected, the average interruption time (24 seconds) was used.
Twenty (of 40) participants were excluded from the comparative analysis of programming errors because they either did not complete the line change task in both the baseline and one-at-a-time conditions due to time constraints (n = 7) and/or they naturally followed a one-at-a-time protocol in the baseline condition (n = 15). Two participants did not complete the task in both conditions and naturally followed a one-at-a-time protocol in the baseline condition. Thus, the number of participants included in the comparative analysis was 20 (i.e., 40–7–15 + 2).
Only 6 (of 40) participants labelled infusions in the baseline condition; only those 6 were included in the comparative analysis of labelling errors.