Automation and interoperability of a nurse-managed insulin infusion protocol as a model to improve safety and efficiency in the delivery of high-alert medications
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2020
Automation and interoperability of a nurse-managed insulin infusion protocol as a model to improve safety and efficiency in the delivery of high-alert medications
The administration of high-alert medications requires the use of enhanced systems to prevent errors. One commonly used system relies on independent verification of dose changes by a second clinician, a human double check. This system is inefficient, and while it may reduce, it does not eliminate error. We postulate that the ability to integrate interoperable medication infusion pumps and electronic medical records systems with existing dose adjustment algorithms can improve the safety and efficiency in the delivery of high-alert and other medications. We followed step-wise systems engineering practices to develop and build a novel system, the Smart Agent, to semi-autonomously administer intravenous insulin according to our hospital’s protocol for nurse-managed insulin infusion in the intensive care units. The prototype system used a commercial medication infusion pump and our existing electronic health record. We believe that this model of interoperable systems integration can be incrementally and broadly developed in the future to improve the safety and workflow of medication infusions.
LeapeLLBatesDWCullenDJ, et al.
Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA1995;
274: 35–43.
2.
FedericoF.Preventing harm from high-alert medications. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf2007;
33: 537–542.
3.
LatifARawatNPustavoitauA, et al.
National study on the distribution, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported medication errors between the ICU and non-ICU settings. Crit Care Med2013;
41: 389–398.
4.
HewittTChreimSForsterA.Double checking: a second look. J Eval Clin Pract2016;
22: 267–274.
5.
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Medical device interoperability: a safer path forward.
Arlington, VA:
Report of The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, 2012.
MathewsSCPronovostPJ.The need for systems integration in health care. JAMA2011;
305: 934–935.
8.
PettusDCVanderveenT.Worth the effort?: Closed-loop infusion pump integration with the EMR. Biomed Instrum Technol2013;
47: 467–477.
9.
PettusDCVanderveenTCanfieldRL, et al.
Reliable and scalable infusion system integration with the electronic medical record. Biomed Instrum Technol2017;
51: 120–129.
10.
GriffithsSMSapirsteinAGuzmanJC, et al.
Automated, web-based solution for bidirectional EHR-infusion pump communication. Biomed Instrum Technol2019;
53: 30–37.
11.
HarringtonL.Interoperability of infusion pumps with electronic health records. AACN Adv Crit Care2018;
29: 377–381.
12.
BiltoftJFinnemanL.Clinical and financial effects of smart pump-electronic medical record interoperability at a hospital in a regional health system. Am J Health Syst Pharm2018;
75: 1064–1068.
13.
BradyJL.First, do no harm: making infusion pumps safer. Biomed Instrum Technol2010;
44: 372–380.
14.
SchnockKODykesPCAlbertJ, et al.
The frequency of intravenous medication administration errors related to smart infusion pumps: a multihospital observational study. BMJ Qual Saf2017;
26: 131–140.
15.
TrbovichPLPinkneySCafazzoJA, et al.
The impact of traditional and smart pump infusion technology on nurse medication administration performance in a simulated inpatient unit. Qual Saf Health Care2010;
19: 430–434.
16.
GoldbergPASiegelMDSherwinRS, et al.
Implementation of a safe and effective insulin infusion protocol in a medical intensive care unit. Diabetes Care2004;
27: 461–467.
17.
Safety innovations: best practice recommendations for infusion pump-information network integration. Biomed Instrum Technol2014;
48: 36–39.
18.
BrownSHLincolnMJGroenPJ, et al.
VistA–U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national-scale HIS. Int J Med Inform2003;
69: 135–156.
19.
Institute for Safe Medication Practice.Independent double checks: undervalued and misused: selective use of this strategy can play an important role in medication safety. MSA! Articles2013;
18: 1–4.
20.
Ibarra-PerezRPuertolas-BalintFLozano-CruzE, et al.
intravenous administration errors intercepted by smart infusion technology in an adult intensive care unit. J Patient Saf. Epub ahead of print 1 April 2017. DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000374.
21.
GerhartDJrO'SheaKMullerS.Advancing medication infusion safety through the clinical integration of technology. Hosp Pract (1995)2013;
41: 7–14.
22.
PruschAESuessTMPaolettiRD, et al.
Integrating technology to improve medication administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm2011;
68: 835–842.
23.
FinferSChittockDRSuSY, et al.
Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med2009;
360: 1283–1297.
24.
VanhorebeekIGunstJVan den BergheG.Critical care management of stress-induced hyperglycemia. Curr Diab Rep2018;
18: 17.
25.
VanhorebeekILangoucheLVan den BergheG.Tight blood glucose control with insulin in the ICU: facts and controversies. Chest2007;
132: 268–278.
26.
BallyLThabitHHovorkaR.Glucose-responsive insulin delivery for type 1 diabetes: the artificial pancreas story. Int J Pharm2018;
544: 309–318.
27.
BrownSAKovatchevBPRaghinaruD, et al.
Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med2019;
381: 1707–1717.
28.
GrunbergerGHandelsmanYBloomgardenZT, et al.
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology 2018 position statement on integration of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in patients with diabetes mellitus. Endocr Pract2018;
24: 302–308.
29.
BallyLThabitHHartnellS, et al.
Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycemic control in noncritical care. N Engl J Med2018;
379: 547–556.
30.
LeelarathnaLEnglishSWThabitH, et al.
Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care2013;
17: R159.
31.
OkabayashiTNishimoriIMaedaH, et al.
Effect of intensive insulin therapy using a closed-loop glycemic control system in hepatic resection patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care2009;
32: 1425–1427.
32.
MarvinMRInzucchiSEBestermanBJ.Minimization of hypoglycemia as an adverse event during insulin infusion: further refinement of the Yale protocol. Diabetes Technol Ther2016;
18: 480–486.
33.
MarvinMRInzucchiSEBestermanBJ.Computerization of the Yale insulin infusion protocol and potential insights into causes of hypoglycemia with intravenous insulin. Diabetes Technol Ther2013;
15: 246–252.
34.
SowanAKVeraAMalsheA, et al.
Transcription errors of blood glucose values and insulin errors in an intensive care unit: secondary data analysis toward electronic medical record-glucometer interoperability. JMIR Med Inform2019;
7: e11873.
35.
RomigMCarolanHRavitzA, et al.
Intensive care unit providers more quickly and accurately assess risk of multiple harms using an engineered safety display. Health Informatics J2019;
25: 1692–1704.
36.
CannonCPDingemanseJKleinbloesemCH, et al.
Automated heparin-delivery system to control activated partial thromboplastin time: evaluation in normal volunteers. Circulation1999;
99: 751–756.
37.
RinehartJMaMCalderonMD, et al.
Feasibility of automated titration of vasopressor infusions using a novel closed-loop controller. J Clin Monit Comput2018;
32: 5–11.
38.
Le GuenMLiuNBourgeoisE, et al.
Automated sedation outperforms manual administration of propofol and remifentanil in critically ill patients with deep sedation: a randomized phase II trial. Intensive Care Med2013;
39: 454–462.
