User-testing guidelines to improve the safety of intravenous medicines administration : a randomised in-situ simulation study

Jones, Matthew D and McGrogan, Anita and Raynor, D K and Watson, Margaret C and Franklin, Bryony Dean (2021) User-testing guidelines to improve the safety of intravenous medicines administration : a randomised in-situ simulation study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 30 (1). pp. 17-26. ISSN 2044-5415

[img]
Preview
Text (Jones-etal-BMJQS-2020-User-testing-guidelines-to-improve-the-safety-of-intravenous)
Jones_etal_BMJQS_2020_User_testing_guidelines_to_improve_the_safety_of_intravenous.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo

Download (826kB)| Preview
    [img] Text (Watson-BMJQS-2020-User-testing-to-improve-retrieval-and-comprehension-of information)
    Watson_BMJQS_2020_User_testing_to_improve_retrieval_and_comprehension_of_information.pdf
    Accepted Author Manuscript
    Restricted to Repository staff only until 26 March 2021.

    Download (1MB) | Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

      Abstract

      Background: User-testing and subsequent modification of clinical guidelines increases health professionals' information retrieval and comprehension. No study has investigated whether this results in safer care. Objective: To compare the frequency of medication errors when administering an intravenous medicine using the current National Health Service Injectable Medicines Guide (IMG) versus an IMG version revised with user-testing. Method: Single-blind, randomised parallel group in situ simulation. Participants were on-duty nurses/midwives who regularly prepared intravenous medicines. Using a training manikin in their clinical area, participants administered a voriconazole infusion, a high-risk medicine requiring several steps to prepare. They were randomised to use current IMG guidelines or IMG guidelines revised with user-testing. Direct observation was used to time the simulation and identify errors. Participant confidence was measured using a validated instrument. The primary outcome was the percentage of simulations with at least one moderate-severe IMG-related error, with error severity classified by an expert panel. Results: In total, 133 participants were randomised to current guidelines and 140 to user-tested guidelines. Fewer moderate-severe IMG-related errors occurred with the user-tested guidelines (n=68, 49%) compared with current guidelines (n=79, 59%), but this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio: 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02). Significantly more simulations were completed without any IMG-related errors with the user-tested guidelines (n=67, 48%) compared with current guidelines (n=26, 20%) (risk ratio: 2.46; 95% CI 1.68 to 3.60). Median simulation completion time was 1.6 min (95% CI 0.2 to 3.0) less with the user-tested guidelines. Participants who used user-tested guidelines reported greater confidence. Conclusion: User-testing injectable medicines guidelines reduces the number of errors and the time taken to prepare and administer intravenous medicines, while increasing staff confidence. Trial registration number: Researchregistry5275.