Search

Background: Hyperkalaemia is managed in the emergency department (ED) following measurement of potassium results by blood gas analysers (BGA) or laboratory analysers (LAB). Aims: To determine the prevalence of clinically significant differences between BGA and LAB potassium results and the impact on ED hyperkalaemia management. Methods: Retrospective analysis of time‐matched ED BGA and LAB potassium samples from 2019 to 2020 (taken within 15 min, one or both results ≥6.0 mmol/L). Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were determined for pairs with one or both results ≥6.0 mmol/L and a separate 500 consecutive sample pairs. Results: Four hundred eighty‐eight matched BGA and LAB samples met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 201 (41.2%) differed by ≤0.5 mmol/L, 169 (34.6%) included a haemolysed LAB sample, and 12 (2.5%) had an unreportable BGA sample. One hundred six (21.7%) pairs differed by >0.5 mmol/L, and 60/106 (57%) had normal LAB potassium results, but BGA indicated moderate/severe hyperkalaemia (two of these pairs received hyperkalaemia treatment). Of patients with a haemolysed LAB sample, or where pairs differed by >0.5 mmol, 48 were treated with insulin and five (10.4%) experienced hypoglycaemia. Mean differences and LoA for pairs with LAB results <6.0 mmol/L but BGA ≥6.0 mmol/L demonstrated unacceptable agreement, with 18 (25.7%) BGA results exceeding 8.0 mmol/L. Conclusions: Potentially significant discordance may occur between BGA and LAB potassium results. Clinicians need to be aware of factors impacting both analytical methods' accuracy (such as poor venepuncture or sample handling, (K) EDTA interference) and undetectable haemolysis with BGA measurements. We recommend BGA hyperkalaemia be confirmed with LAB results using a non‐haemolysed sample where time permits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obtaining accurate medication histories at transitions of care is challenging, but important for patient safety. Prescription exchange services (PES) securely transfer electronic prescription and dispensing records between prescribers and pharmacies, which is potentially useful data for determining medication histories. Aim: To evaluate the accuracy of PES‐derived medication histories. Methods: Prospective observational study, at two Australian tertiary‐referral health services. A convenience sample of adult inpatients was recruited. The main outcome measure was: proportion of patients with ≥1 errors in their PES‐derived pre‐admission medication histories, compared with gold‐standard best‐possible medication histories, including prescribed and non‐prescribed medications, obtained by pharmacists using multiple sources including patient/carer interview. Results: Of 154 patients (median age 76 years; interquartile range (IQR) 64–84 years; median 10.0 pre‐admission medications; IQR 6.0–14.0), 153 (99.4%) had ≥1 errors in their PES‐derived medication history (median 6.0 errors per patient; IQR 4.0–9.0). Excluding when‐required medications, 146 (94.8%) patients had >1 errors (median 4.0 errors per patient; IQR 2.0–6.0). Omission was the most common error, affecting 549 (33.3%) of 1648 current medications (median 3.0; IQR 1.0–5.0 per patient); 396 (72.1%) omissions were over‐the‐counter medicines. Dose‐regimen errors affected 276 (25.1%) of 1099 current medications captured in PES‐derived medication histories (median 1.0 error per patient; IQR 0.0–3.0). Commission errors (medications in PES‐derived histories that were not current) affected 224 (16.9%) of 1323 medications (median 1.0 error per patient; IQR 1.0–2.0). Conclusions: Medication histories derived solely from a cloud‐based medication record repository had a high error rate compared with patients' actual medication use. Like all medication history sources, data from cloud‐based repositories need to be verified with additional sources including the patient and/or their carer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]