Analysis of factors affecting the accuracy of low-dose insulin dosage using syringes and vials: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese regional hospital

While several studies have shown that insulin pens are more convenient and accurate than conventional administration with syringes and vials (syringes/vials), there is a frequent need for low-dose insulin injections administered by nurses using syringes/vials in hospital settings, particularly for critically ill patients. However, there is a lack of research investigating factors related to the accuracy of low-dose insulin administration using syringes/vials, particularly in hospital settings. We therefore performed a cross-sectional study to assess the accuracy of low-dose insulin administration by registered nurses using syringes/vials and to determine whether time of day, years of experience and adherence to proper injection procedures (vertical insertion/drawing and air bubble checking) affected the accuracy. The participants were 33 registered nurses working in the diabetes ward, and a total of 198 trials were analyzed. Using syringes/vials, the median errors converted to insulin units were found to be 0.6 units for the 2- and 6-unit target doses, and 0.7 units for the 10-unit target dose. In cases with the largest error, errors for the 2-, 6-, and 10-unit target doses were observed to be 2.3, 4.0, and 3.3 units, respectively. In our study, time of day, years of experience and vertical insertion/drawing did not correlate with errors, but errors were significant in the participants who did not check for air bubbles. Nurses can make non-negligible dosage errors when administering low-dose insulin using syringes/vials, and this is particularly likely when air bubble checks are missed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-024-00726-5.

Inpatient Insulin Pen Implementation, Waste, and Potential Cost Savings: A Community Hospital Experience

BACKGROUND

Insulin pen injectors ("pens") are intended to facilitate a patient's self-administration of insulin and can be used in hospitalized patients as a learning opportunity. Unnecessary or duplicate dispensation of insulin pens is associated with increased healthcare costs.

METHODS

Inpatient dispensation of insulin pens in a 240-bed community hospital between July 2018 and July 2019 was analyzed. We calculated the percentage of insulin pens unnecessarily dispensed for patients who had the same type of insulin pen assigned. The estimated cost of insulin pen waste was calculated. A pharmacist-led task force group implemented hospital-wide awareness and collaborated with hospital leadership to define goals and interventions.

RESULTS

9516 insulin pens were dispensed to 3121 patients. Of the pens dispensed, 6451 (68%) were insulin aspart and 3065 (32%) were glargine. Among patients on insulin aspart, an average of 2.2 aspart pens was dispensed per patient, but only an estimated 1.2 pens/patient were deemed necessary. Similarly, for inpatients prescribed glargine, an average of 2.1 pens/patient was dispensed, but only 1.3 pens/patient were necessary. A number of gaps were identified and interventions were undertaken to reduce insulin pen waste, which resulted in a significant decrease in both aspart (p = 0.0002) and glargine (p = 0.0005) pens/patient over time. Reductions in pen waste resulted in an estimated cost savings of $66 261 per year.

CONCLUSIONS

In a community hospital setting, identification of causes leading to unnecessary insulin dispensation and implementation of hospital-wide staff education led to change in insulin pen dispensation practice. These changes translated into considerable cost savings and facilitated diabetes self-management education.

The Impact of a Nursing Strike on Glycemic Control in Hospitalized Patients with Diabetes

Introduction Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia have been found to increase morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients with diabetes. In July of 2018, our academic medical center experienced a 48-hour nursing strike, during which time 600 replacement nurses were employed. This cohort study evaluated the impact of the nursing strike on glycemic control among hospitalized patients with diabetes. Methods Point-of-care fingerstick blood glucose (POC BG) values among hospitalized patients with diabetes were compared between the 48-hour nursing strike period and two 48-hour periods when the nursing strike did not occur. We evaluated the percentage of POC BG values that were hyperglycemic (POC BG 181-250 mg/dL), severely hyperglycemic (POC BG >250 mg/dL), and hypoglycemic (POC BG <70 mg/dL). Additionally, we assessed the proportion of patients who experienced one or more days of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, or severe hyperglycemia. Results We found a significant association between the distributions of POC BG test results during the nursing strike; test results more frequently showed hyperglycemia, severe hyperglycemia, or hypoglycemia during the nursing strike than during the control period (p=0.006). There was a significant difference in the days of hypoglycemia, with 7.7% of patients experiencing one or more days of hypoglycemia during the strike period compared with 1.4% of patients during the control period (p=0.03). Conclusion Nursing strikes have been employed as a last resort in contract negotiations with hospitals, but they have the potential to significantly affect patient care and safety. Further studies are needed to evaluate these impacts to prepare for future workforce disruptions.

A Longitudinal Assessment of the Quality of Insulin Prescribing with Different Prescribing Systems

Accurate and complete prescriptions of insulin are crucial to prevent medication errors from occurring. Two core components for safe insulin prescriptions are the word 'units' being written in full for the dose, and clear documentation of the insulin device alongside the name. A retrospective review of annual audit data was conducted for insulin prescriptions to assess the impact of changes to the prescribing system within a secondary care setting, at five time points over a period of 7 years (2014 to 2020). The review points were based on when changes were made, from standardized paper charts with a dedicated section for insulin prescribing, to a standalone hospital wide electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA) system, and finally an integrated electronic health record system (EHRS). The measured outcomes were compliance with recommended standards for documentation of 'units' in full, and inclusion of the insulin device as part of the prescription. Overall, an improvement was seen in both outcomes of interest. Device documentation improved incrementally with each system change-34% for paper charts, 23%-56% for standalone ePMA, and 100% for ePMA integrated within EHRS. Findings highlight that differences in ePMA systems may have varying impact on safe prescribing practices.

Development and Implementation of a Subcutaneous Insulin Pen Label Bar Code Scanning Protocol to Prevent Wrong-Patient Insulin Pen Errors

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Insulin, a high-alert medication, is regularly prescribed in the inpatient setting for hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus. Although convenient, insulin pens carry a risk of blood-borne pathogens if the same pen is used on multiple patients. At the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a new nursing protocol for insulin pen administration was developed to ensure that insulin was quickly available and to identify and move to eliminate wrong-patient insulin pen errors. This protocol involved unit-based automated dispensing machines and an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient-specific bar code label work flow.

APPROACH

After piloting on three hospital units, this new patient-specific bar code label process was expanded hospitalwide. "Print Label For Insulin Pen" and "Scan Insulin Pen" buttons were programmed into the EHR to enable nurses to print patient-specific bar code labels. In addition, a "wrong-patient pen alert" was activated to prevent wrong-pen insulin pen administration.

OUTCOMES

For the 162,075 inpatient insulin pen administrations during the study period (April 2017-March 2018), monthly errors (rates) ranged from 13 (0.12%) to 36 (0.23%). In total, 296 near-miss events (0.18% of all insulin pen administrations) were observed and prevented.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pen work flow and EHR changes implemented at UCSF enable subcutaneous insulin to remain a time-critical medication and ensure patient safety. The wide adoption of EHRs offers an opportunity to integrate patient safety improvements directly into the electronic medication administration record systems to maximize patient safety.