Search

Background: Drug handling in paediatric intensive care units (PICU) is prone to medication errors. We aimed to identify type and prevalence of those errors and to assess preventative interventions., Methods: Prospective intervention study investigating a 3-step intervention for preventing errors in drug handling in a 10-bed PICU of a university hospital. Nurses' drug handling was monitored in daily routine to identify the number of patients affected by errors and overall prevalence and types of errors in drug handling. We implemented a comprehensive intervention consisting of an information handout, a training course, and a 76-page reference book tailored to reduce the prevalence., Results: The prevalence of errors in drug handling decreased from 83 % (555 errors/668 processes)to 63 % (554/883; p < 0.001) after the intervention. The number of affected patients remained unchanged (95 % vs. 89 %, p = 0.370).Peroral (PO) drugs (1.33 errors/process) were more error-prone than intravenous (IV) drugs(0.64), despite being used less frequently (27 % vs.73 % of all processes, p < 0.001). The interventions decreased the prevalence to 0.77 errors/process(p < 0.001) in PO and to 0.52 in IV drugs (p = 0.025)., Conclusion: Errors in drug handling were alarmingly frequent. PO drugs were frequently subject to errors, even though being used less frequently. The implementation of a comprehensive intervention succeeded in reducing the prevalence of errors. Yet further refinements are necessary to decrease also the number of affected patients., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Nasogastric rehydration therapy (NGRT) is the recommended therapy in moderately dehydrated children with gastroenteritis and refusal to drink, since it is supposed to be as effective if not better than intravenous rehydration therapy (IVRT). However, in clinical practice IVRT is often favored. We conducted a clinical trial to determine whether IVRT is not inferior to NGRT., Patients and Methods: Children 3 months to 6 years of age with moderate dehydration and refusal to drink secondary to gastroenteritis were recruited. After clinical assessment of the degree of dehydration, patients were assigned randomly to receive either IVRT or NGRT over 6 h on the hospital ward., Results: Recruitment did not yield the estimated number of patients. Mainly, non-enrollment was due to failure to obtain parental consent because IVRT was expected. 97 patients were enrolled in the study, 46 were randomized to NGRT and 51 to IVRT. There was no difference between IVRT and NGRT groups concerning length of hospital stay (2.2±1.1 days vs. 2.4±1.1 days), success of rehydration (78 vs. 76%) and adverse events., Discussion: Since we had to terminate the study ahead of schedule due to a low recruiting rate, our results are not reliable. However, data from the literature shows that the widespread described superiority of NGRT over IVRT is seriously influenced by studies from developing countries questioning the applicability of the results to a setting available in high-income countries nowadays., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the difficulties performing such a study in a high-income country to come to an objective and clearly evident final conclusion., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)