PubMed · 12645500
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2003. Thermometer exchange tips.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12645500/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to evaluate a smart i.v. pump as it was implemented into a redesigned medication-use process. SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary team conducted a FMEA to guide the implementation of a smart i.v. pump that was designed to prevent pump programming errors. The smart i.v. pump was equipped with a dose-error reduction system that included a pre-defined drug library in which dosage limits were set for each medication. Monitoring for potential failures and errors occurred for three months postimplementation of FMEA. Specific measures were used to determine the success of the actions that were implemented as a result of the FMEA. The FMEA process at the hospital identified key failure modes in the medication process with the use of the old and new pumps, and actions were taken to avoid errors and adverse events. I.V. pump software and hardware design changes were also recommended. Thirteen of the 18 failure modes reported in practice after pump implementation had been identified by the team. A beneficial outcome of FMEA was the development of a multidisciplinary team that provided the infrastructure for safe technology implementation and effective event investigation after implementation. With the continual updating of i.v. pump software and hardware after implementation, FMEA can be an important starting place for safe technology choice and implementation and can produce site experts to follow technology and process changes over time. CONCLUSION: FMEA was useful in identifying potential problems in the medication-use process with the implementation of new smart i.v. pumps. Monitoring for system failures and errors after implementation remains necessary.
A four-year prospective study was undertaken at the University Hospital Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust to evaluate the effect of the introduction of a range of safety hypodermic needle devices on the number of reported needlestick injuries (NSIs). Data on the number of reported NSIs for four clinical areas began in 2001. Following an enhanced sharps awareness strategy in 2002, the number of NSIs reduced from 16.9/100,000 devices used in 2001 to 13.9/100,000 devices (P=0.813). In 2003, when only standard training was provided, the number of NSIs increased to 20/100,000 devices. However, the subsequent introduction of three safety needle devices with concomitant training resulted in a significant reduction in the number of reported NSIs to 6/100,000 devices in 2004 (P=0.045). User satisfaction and acceptance of the safety needles was also very favourable. These results suggest that when safety needle devices are introduced into the clinical setting and appropriate training is given, a significant reduction in the number of occupationally acquired NSIs may ensue.
Nearly 6 years have passed since the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000 was signed into law. We reviewed studies published since 1995 that evaluated the effect of safety-engineered device implementation on rates of percutaneous injury (PI) among health care workers. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the review were as follows: the intervention used to reduce PIs was a needleless system or a device with engineered sharps-injury protection, the outcome measurements included a PI rate, the intervention was evaluated in a defined population with clear comparison groups in clinical settings, and outcomes and denominators used for rate calculations were objectively measured using consistent methodology. All 17 studies reported substantial decreases in device-associated or overall PI rates after device implementation (range of reduction, 22%-100%). The majority of studies (n=12) were uncontrolled before-after trials with limited ability to control for confounding variables. In addition, implementation of safety-engineered devices was often accompanied by other interventions, and direct measurement of outcomes was not performed. Nevertheless, safety-engineered devices are an important component in PI prevention.