Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study of policy and practice across 16 hospital trusts in England

Abstract

BackgroundProcedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed.ResultsAt least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5–49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking.ConclusionsDeviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3025-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Double checking injectable medication administration: Does the protocol fit clinical practice?

“…The second nurse needs to compare the information with the original medication order from the physician (confirmation), and calculate the right administration rate separately (independent check). Hence, the second nurse has not only a confirmative role (Furniss et al, 2018). The medical ethical committee of the Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam waived the requirement of informed consent (protocol number: 2018/156) as they found the scope of the study outside the Dutch Medical Research (Human Subjects) Act.…”

“…A deeper understanding may reveal workarounds or adaptation of the proceeding while still guaranteeing patient safety. Furthermore, it may reveal a lack of fit between the protocol (work-as-imagined) and daily clinical practice (work-as-done) and provide possibilities for organizational learning to reduce the gap between work-as-imagined and work-asdone (Furniss et al, 2018).…”

Nature of adverse events with opioids in hospitalised patients: a post-hoc analysis of three patient record review studies

“…Using the Safety-2 perspective may offer new opportunities to do so. 52 In order to understand what happened when an adverse (drug) event occurred, it is also necessary to understand how work is done when the process goes well. 53 Since healthcare processes have become more complex nowadays, it may be helpful to visualise the current variable practice of prescribing and administering opioids from a multistakeholder perspective.…”

Challenges in making standardisation work in healthcare: lessons from a qualitative interview study of a line-labelling policy in a UK region

“…However, standardisation is rarely a straightforward process: challenges may arise, for example, because standards themselves are defined and implemented through complex sociotechnical processes involving people, routines, protocols and technologies, requiring multiple kinds of purposeful effort during development, implementation and maintenance stages 10. Understanding the existing system into which standards are to be introduced or refined is crucial for their success (ie, for their uptake by stakeholders) 11. Yet the challenges associated with standardisation of everyday objects have remained largely neglected as a focus of study.…”