Medication Errors Involving Patient-Controlled Analgesia

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]

BACKGROUND

Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found.

CONCLUSION

Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.

Device-Related Error in Patient-Controlled Analgesia: Analysis of 82,698 Patients in a Tertiary Hospital

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is one of the most popular and effective methods for managing postoperative pain. Various types of continuous infusion pumps are available for the safe and accurate administration of analgesic drugs. Here we report the causes and clinical outcomes of device-related errors in PCA.

METHODS

Clinical records from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 were collected by acute pain service team nurses in a 2715-bed tertiary hospital. Devices for all types of PCA, including intravenous PCA, epidural PCA, and nerve block PCA, were included for analysis. The following 4 types of infusion pumps were used during the study period: elastomeric balloon infusers, carbon dioxide-driven infusers, semielectronic disposable pumps, and electronic programmable pumps. We categorized PCA device-related errors based on the error mechanism and clinical features.

RESULTS

Among 82,698 surgical patients using PCA, 610 cases (0.74%) were reported as human error, and 155 cases (0.19%) of device-related errors were noted during the 4-year study period. The most common type of device-related error was underflow, which was observed in 47 cases (30.3%). The electronic programmable pump exhibited the high incidence of errors in PCA (70 of 15,052 patients; 0.47%; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.59) among the 4 types of devices, and 96 of 152 (63%) patients experienced some type of adverse outcome, ranging from minor symptoms to respiratory arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PCA device-related errors was <0.2% and significantly differed according to the infusion pump type. A total of 63% of patients with PCA device-related errors suffered from adverse clinical outcomes, with no mortality. Recent technological advances may contribute to reducing the incidence and severity of PCA errors. Nonetheless, the results of this study can be used to improve patient safety and ensure quality care.

Microsystem technologies for medical applications

Medical technologies are evolving at a very rapid pace. Portable communication devices and other handheld electronics are influencing our expectations of future medical tools. The advanced medical technologies of our future will not necessarily be large expensive systems. They are just as likely to be small and disposable. This paper reviews how microsystems are already impacting health care as commercial products or in clinical development. Example systems for point-of-care testing (POCT), patient monitoring tools, systemic drug delivery, local drug delivery, and surgical tools are described. These technologies are moving care from hospitals to outpatient settings, physicians' offices, community health centers, nursing homes, and the patients' homes. Microsystems that are rapidly adopted fulfill significant medical needs and are compatible with existing clinical practice.