Healthcare Consulting Services
PO Box 1230
Grantham, NH 03753
ph: 716-550-1106
btruax
Healthcare Consulting Services with a Focus on Patient Safety Solutions and Quality Improvement Across the Health Care Continuum. Your Patient Safety Resource Solution.
February 19, 2019
Focus on Pediatric Patient Safety
The pediatric literature this past month has had an intense focus on patient safety for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a Policy Statement “Principles of Pediatric Patient Safety: Reducing Harm Due to Medical Care” (Mueller 2019). And a consortium of Children’s Hospitals compiled a prioritized list of research topics for pediatric patient safety (Hoffman 2019).
The AAP policy statement (Mueller 2019) begins with an excellent review of the literature on pediatric patient safety issues. It then goes into the safety culture, which includes human factors concepts, and discusses the concepts of human fallibility, organizational culture, reporting culture, learning culture, flexible culture, and just culture. It goes on to discuss many of the strategies and approaches to patient safety and the roles of leadership, healthcare information technology, and goals set not only by The Joint Commission but also by a variety of other professional organizations. The appendices and reference list provide excellent links to useful information and tools.
It ends with a set of recommendations:
See the AAP paper for details on each of these recommendations.
The second paper comes from the Children’s Hospitals Solutions for Patient Safety Network, a network of >100 children’s hospitals working together to eliminate harm due to health care. They engaged key stakeholders (importantly, including parents) in an iterative process to identify and prioritize topics on pediatric patient safety (Hoffman 2019). They developed a final list of 24 topics. Top-priority research topics concerned high reliability, safety culture, open communication, and early detection of patient deterioration and sepsis. Further discussion with health system executives put the following at the top of their list as priority areas: diagnostic error, medication safety, deterioration, and ambulatory patient safety.
For years, our pediatric colleagues have been reminding us that “kids are not just little adults”. And that does ring true when it comes to patient safety. There are clearly vulnerabilities in infants and children that render them at risk for a variety of patient safety hazards. So we went back and reviewed our own patient safety columns related to children over the years, and we clearly see the impact of those vulnerabilities. We noted several key contributing factors:
Medication safety would have been at the top of our list and many of the vulnerabilities unique to children lead to adverse medication events. Compared to adults, where “standardized” doses are typically used, children have different body weights and surface areas that lead to the need to calculate their medication doses. Any time you have to perform a calculation, you’ve added an additional threat layer (see our many columns on dosing errors and dose rounding issues). Moreover, someone else is usually making medical decisions or management and they may be prone to error (see our columns on parental “numeracy” issues). Genetically-determined vulnerabilities are often first brought to light in children (for example, the “rapid metabolizer” issue that renders children at risk from use of codeine). The fact that children are often excluded from clinical trials may preclude them from benefiting from certain drugs but may also put them in harm’s way when someone uses those drugs in a population where they have not been adequately assessed for safety and efficacy.
Because they may not be able to communicate with us, they cannot tell us “hey, you’ve got the wrong patient!”. They may not be able to communicate to us that they are having an adverse reaction to a medication we’ve given them. And inability to communicate may impede our ability to recognize early clinical deterioration in patients with sepsis or other conditions.
Infants and children can’t be expected to hold still for diagnostic studies like CT or MRI or for therapeutic interventions like dental work. Therefore, they are given sedation for such events and are put at risk for the unwanted consequences of sedation (respiratory depression, aspiration, etc.).
Kids are inquisitive and like to play. That puts them at risk for finding things like discarded opioid transdermal patches, which can lead to disaster if they put these in their mouths or attach them to their skin. They can get into medicine cabinets (or other places where medications intended for their parents or siblings are kept) and ingest medications that will harm them. We’ve also noted cases where kids had ingested magnets and underwent MRI with consequent burning of GI tissues.
Most of our columns on the effects of unnecessary radiation exposure have focused on children. The carcinogenic risks from ionizing radiation often depend upon cumulative doses and children obviously have a much longer lifespan that allows for more total radiation exposure.
While we listed “similarity of names” in neonatal units, there are actually many factors that contribute to misidentification issues in newborns. Our numerous columns on this topic are listed below.
And we’ve not even touched upon the many other safety hazards for children that are not directly related to medical care but should be addressed by healthcare professionals when they interact with infants and children and their families. These include topics like gun safety, bicycle and automobile (or other vehicles) safety, sports safety, drugs, smoking, bullying, and other topics. We pointed to some good references for those topics in our January 2019 What's New in the Patient Safety World column “Pediatric Health and Safety Guide”.
Some of our other columns on pediatric medication errors:
November 2007 “1000-fold Overdoses by Transposing mg for micrograms”
December 2007 “1000-fold Heparin Overdoses Back in the News Again”
June 28, 2011 “Long-Acting and Extended-Release Opioid Dangers”
September 13, 2011 “Do You Use Fentanyl Transdermal Patches Safely?”
September 2011 “Dose Rounding in Pediatrics”
April 17, 2012 “10x Dose Errors in Pediatrics”
May 2012 “Another Fentanyl Patch Warning from FDA”
June 2012 “Parents’ Math Ability Matters”
September 2012 “FDA Warning on Codeine Use in Children Following Tonsillectomy”
May 7, 2013 “Drug Errors in the Home”
May 2014 “Pediatric Codeine Prescriptions in the ER”
November 2014 “Out-of-Hospital Pediatric Medication Errors”
January 13, 2015 “More on Numeracy”
April 2015 “Pediatric Dosing Unit Recommendations”
September 2015 “Alert: Use Only Medication Dosing Cups with mL Measurements”
November 2015 “FDA Safety Communication on Tramadol in Children”
October 2016 “Another Codeine Warning for Children”
January 31, 2017 “More Issues in Pediatric Safety”
May 2017 “FDA Finally Restricts Codeine in Kids; Tramadol, Too”
August 2017 “Medication Errors Outside of Healthcare Facilities”
August 2017 “More on Pediatric Dosing Errors”
September 2017 “Weight-Based Dosing in Children”
Some of our previous columns on opioid safety issues in children:
Some of our previous columns on sedation issues in children:
Some of our prior columns related to identification issues in newborns:
Some of our prior columns related to radiation issues in children:
Miscellaneous columns on other pediatric patient safety topics:
References:
Mueller BU, Neuspiel DR, Stucky ER, Fisher S, Council on Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy Statement.
Principles of Pediatric Patient Safety: Reducing Harm Due to Medical Care. Pediatrics 2019; 143(2): e20183649 February 2019
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2019/01/18/peds.2018-3649
Hoffman JM, Keeling NJ, Forrest CB, et al. Priorities for Pediatric Patient Safety Research. Pediatrics 2019; Jan 2019: e20180496 January 23, 2019
Print “Focus on Pediatric Patient Safety”
February 26, 2019
Vascular Access Device Dislodgements
It’s staring us right in the face. It’s so common, we never think about it as a patient safety issue. But the latest under-the-radar patient safety topic: dislodgement of catheters and vascular access devices! But it really shouldn’t be a surprise. Dislodgement of vascular access devices and other devices is important for “the 3 C’s”: comfort, complications, and cost.
When vascular access devices are dislodged, delays in treatment occur. Intravenous fluid replacement falls behind and intravenous medication administration is delayed. And, in some cases where peripheral sites are scarce, the need for vascular access may result in the patient getting a more invasive procedure (central line, subclavian line, etc.). Complications include bleeding, skin tears, air embolism, hematoma, phlebitis, thrombus formation, infiltration, extravasation, and infection.
Patient comfort is impacted, both by the above mentioned complications and by pain and anxiety during restarts or need for a more invasive procedure for vascular access.
Very few hospitals even know the impact of catheter/device dislodgement. They seldom record a reason when such devices are changed or discontinued. But maybe if they break out spending on such devices, the problem of dislodgement might garner some attention. And those cost considerations do not include the cost of additional time required for care provided by nursing and other healthcare professionals. Requirements to attend to dislodged catheters and restarts can take time away from other nursing tasks and even result in some “missed care” (see our many columns on the impact of missed care).
A web-based survey of clinicians (Moureau 2018) found that 68% of respondents reported often, daily, or multiple times daily occurrence of accidental dislodgement affecting intravenous (IV) devices. 96.5% identified peripheral intravenous catheters as most common device experiencing accidental dislodgement.
The most commonly reported contributing factors were:
80% Confused patient
74% Patient physically removes catheter
65% IV catheter tape or securement loose
60% Patient moving around in bed with tangled tubing
51% Any forceful pull by patient or other
48% Patient going to bathroom forgetting IV is attached
47% Patient hair growth or perspiration lifting dressing
38% Bed transfer of patient
33% Hospital staff assisting patient when IV dislodged
3% Tubing too long and gets caught when ambulating
Moureau gives a conservative projection of accidental dislodgement incidence at 19 million events per year in the United States.
She also notes that, regarding time for PIV replacement, most clinicians responding to the survey estimated a range of 6-30 minutes (depending on patient-related factors and type of hospital setting among other factors).
A study of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIV’s) in a tertiary hospital in Australia (Marsh 2018) followed 1000 patients until catheter removal. Catheter failure occurred in 32% of 1578 PIV’s. Phlebitis occurred in 17%. Factors associated with occlusion/infiltration risk included intravenous (IV) flucloxacillin, 22-gauge PIV’s, and female patients. Phlebitis was associated with female patients, bruised insertion sites, IV flucloxacillin, and dominant side insertion. Paramedic insertion was a risk for dislodgement. Each increase by 1 in the average number of daily PIV accesses was associated with occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and dislodgement. On the other hand, additional securement products were associated with less occlusion/infiltration, phlebitis and dislodgement.
The authors note that their findings regarding the 22-guage PIV’s question international guidelines, which currently recommend the smallest gauge peripheral catheter possible. They also note that they did not have good data on the impact of multiple insertion attempts because they did not witness the insertions.
They note that their PIV failure rate of 32% is actually lower than rates in most published studies.
They used a mean cost of PIV replacement cost of US $51.92 per episode of IV treatment (Tuffaha 2014) to calculate the financial impact of PIV failures. For their hospital, which uses 200,000 PIV’s per year, the current level of PIV failure suggests almost US $4.1 million in waste annually at this site alone.
Another Australian study (Wallis 2014) performed a secondary data analysis from a randomized controlled trial of PIVC (peripheral intravenous catheter) dwell time. They found these potentially modifiable risk factors for occlusion: hand, antecubital fossa, or upper arm insertion compared with forearm. Larger diameter PIVC was a risk factor for phlebitis. PIVC’s inserted by the operating and radiology suite staff had lower occlusion risk than ward insertions. Modifiable risks for accidental removal included hand or antecubital fossa insertion compared with forearm, clinical staff insertion compared with intravenous service, and smaller PIVC diameter. Female sex was a nonmodifiable factor associated with an increased risk of both phlebitis and occlusion. The authors conclude that PIVC survival is improved by preferential forearm insertion, selection of appropriate PIVC diameter, and insertion by intravenous teams and other specialists.
So how do you minimize the risk of device dislodgement and many of these other complications of peripheral IV catheters?
Czajka et al. (Czajka 2018) show that proper primary and secondary securement can reduce complications, increase patient comfort, and save money. In fact, they make a case that decisions related to securement of vascular access devices should be considered equally as important as the choice of the catheter itself.
“Primary” catheter securement directly holds the catheter in place on the skin. “Secondary” securement acts as an additional anchor for the infusion set tubing or extension set to reduce any force the primary securement receives when energy is applied to the tubing by accident or rapid patient movement. They stress that secondary securement is as important as the primary. Primary stabilization cannot withstand the forces applied, for example, when IV tubing becomes trapped in the bed rail during a patient transfer. Without the secondary securement “shock absorber,” the primary stabilization can fail, resulting in a lost catheter.
They note that all lines, whether PVC’s (peripheral venous catheters) or CVC’s (central venous catheters), should be secured. Proper securement is particularly important when placing an infusion line in anatomic areas of greater movement (eg. antecubital veins or saphenous veins in the foot), and for patients at greater risk of unintentional dislodgment (eg., those who are confused, combative, or developmentally challenged, or have changes in mental status) and neonates, infants, and toddlers.
Multiple catheter securement choices are available, including several types of tape, transparent dressings, sutures, engineered securement devices (ESD’s), subcutaneous ESD’s, and medical cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives. Factors influencing choice of the most appropriate method for securement include patient age, skin turgor and integrity, previous adhesive skin reactions or injuries, and any type of drainage at the insertion site. They cite studies showing engineered securement devices (ESD’s) have advantages over the old standard of suture and tape. But the ESD must be available in a wide variety of sizes for all populations. It should be gentle to the skin and should not impede vascular circulation or delivery of the prescribed therapy, damage the catheter, or be a source of needlestick injuries. Obviously, the ESD should not interfere with assessing and monitoring the access site.
Before replacing an ESD, it is important to remove all old adhesive to allow for appropriate skin antisepsis. Watch for adhesive–related injuries associated with the use of or removal of adhesive- based ESD’s.
They stress that a dislodged or displaced vascular access device should never be re-advanced into a vein. Peripheral catheters that become dislodged should be removed. Dislodged central catheters should be assessed for tip position, infusion therapies, and other influencing factors. Then stabilize that PICC at the current position; in some cases, a new catheter insertion may be warranted.
The ECRI Institute PSO (ECRI 2018) has a nice review on device dislodgement (not only vascular access devices but also devices like feeding tubes, nephrostomy tubes, and others) and includes a staff handout pointing out the importance of avoiding such dislodgements and the steps to prevent them.
So far we’ve been talking primarily about regular peripheral IV’s rather than peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC lines). We refer you back to our multiple columns on PICC lines (listed below) that call into question the often misperceived relative safety of PICC lines. In addition, a new study (Krein 2019) analyzed PICC-related complications from the perspective of the patient, both during and after hospitalization. This included 438 consecutive patients with PICC’s at four US hospitals between 2015 and 2017. During the 70-day follow-up period, 61.4% of patients reported signs of at least one complication, including potentially serious complications, such as bloodstream infection (17.6%) and deep vein thrombosis (30.6%). Correspondence of these reported events with medical record documentation of the complication was generally low. More than one-quarter (27.9%) of patients reported minor complications, such as insertion site redness, discomfort or difficult removal. While the PICC was in place, 26.0% reported restrictions in activities of daily living, 14.4% social activity restrictions and 19.2% had difficulty with flushing or operating the PICC. The exact incidence of catheter dislodgement is not clear because it was lumped together in a category “Discomfort, inadvertent removal, migration or difficulty when removed” that was seen in 8.4% of patients.
Have your fiscal analysts take a look at your supply costs for vascular access devices. Then add in an estimated cost for the time your nurses or other healthcare professionals spend dealing with dislodged vascular access sites. Now that you have everyone’s attention, do an audit of peripheral IV’s and PICC lines (either specified consecutive cases or a “convenience” sample) so you can determine rates of dislodgement and complications. Better yet, take one of those unused customizable fields in your EMR and use it to record a reason for every new IV insertion or change or removal. Make sure you readily identify the risk factors in the Moureau, Marsh, and Wallis papers. Then make sure you are using some of the techniques and best practices in the Czajka and ECRI papers. And make review of your vascular access device experiences a regular part of your quality improvement program.
Some of our other columns on central venous catheters and PICC lines:
January 21, 2014 “The PICC Myth”
December 2014 “Surprise Central Lines”
July 2015 “Reducing Central Venous Catheter Use”
October 2015 “Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters”
March 27, 2018 “PICC Use Persists”
References:
Moureau N. Impact and Safety Associated with Accidental Dislodgement of Vascular Access Devices: A Survey of Professions, Settings, and Devices. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access 2018; 23(4): 203-215
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1552885518300734#!
Marsh N, Webster J, Larsen E, et al. Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure. J Hosp Med 2018; 13(2): 83-89. Published online first October 18, 2017
Tuffaha HW, Rickard CM, Webster J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2014; 12(1): 51-58
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-013-0077-2
Wallis MC, McGrail M, Webster J, et al. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35(1): 63-68
Czajka C, Frey AM, Schears G. Vascular Access Device Stabilization and Line Securement. Am Nurs Today 2018; 13(12): 22-24
https://www.americannursetoday.com/vascular-access-device-stabilization-and-line-securement/
ECRI Institute PSO. Device dislodgements: common but sometimes harmful event. PSO Navigator. November 2018; 10[4]
https://www.ecri.org/components/PSOCore/Pages/PSONav1118.aspx
ECRI PSO staff handout on device dislodgements
Krein SI, Saint S, Trautner BW, et al. Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf 2019; Published Online First: 25 January 2019
https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/25/bmjqs-2018-008726
Print “Vascular Access Device Dislodgements”
To get "Patient Safety Tip of the Week "emailed to you, click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
If you don't see the search term you expected to see here, its probably because that tip already went to our Tip of the Week Archive. We do a new tip every week. Click here to search the entire site or you can Go to Tip of the Week Archive a patient safety resource solution loaded with tips, tools, and techniques you can use in your patient safety and quality improvement initiatives. Or it may have moved to our What's New Archive.
Click here to see the consulting services and patient safety solutions that we provide.
Click on the "Contact Us" button at the left to send us your comments on our "What's New in the Patient Safety World" columns.
To get "Patient Safety Tip of the Week "emailed to you, click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
February 2019
The American Academy of Neurology (AAN), the American Neurological Association (ANA), and the Child Neurology Society (CNS) have issued a position statement calling for laws to require a uniform definition of brain death (Russell 2019). They endorse legislation modeled after a Nevada statute, which specifically defers to current adult and pediatric Brain Death Guidelines and any future updates.
This is an issue near and dear to our hearts. Dr. Truax, along with Dr. Rick Munschauer, co-authored New York State’s first braindeath determination criteria in the mid-1990’s. These arose out of very practical considerations. At the University of Buffalo we had a consortium of teaching hospitals. Our neurology residents rotated through 6 hospitals. Unfortunately, they encountered different policies and approaches to braindeath determination at each hospital. That led us to convene local stakeholders to develop a uniform policy and approach for all our consortium hospitals.
Shortly after we had developed our local consortium guidelines, the New York State Department of Health convened a group of representatives from all over New York to address this issue. Dr. Fred Plum chaired the group’s sessions. We ended up adopting statewide the Buffalo criteria with a few modifications. These were the first official guidelines in New York. Dr. Truax subsequently served as the Department of Health’s spokesperson on the criteria for the next 10 years.
While the need for uniformity was the most compelling reason for development of such criteria, there were other important considerations as well. Prior to that work, most neurologists and neurosurgeons informally used the “Harvard criteria”, which had been developed years earlier. The Harvard criteria, in addition to demonstration of cessation of all brainstem and cortical function, required 2 EEG’s done 24 hours apart that demonstrated no evidence of electrocortical activity. They also required 2 neurological exams (24 hours apart) and that 2 neurologists or neurosurgeons be involved in confirmation of braindeath.
That led to several problems. One was that it had implications for organ donation and organ procurement (the long delay sometimes led to lack of viability of organs that might have been donated). The other major issue was that not all hospitals had ready availability of EEG’s and many, particularly small rural hospitals, did not have access to 2 neurologists or even any neurologists or neurosurgeons.
So, the criteria we developed included the usual bedside clinical determination of absence of both cortical and brainstem function and demonstration of lack of respiration when there was an adequate physiologic stimulus that should have caused respiration (we developed recommendations as to how to appropriately perform and interpret the apnea test). And we allowed use of a test demonstrating lack of intracerebral blood flow as a confirmatory test that might be particularly useful in those cases where adequate assessment of brainstem function was not possible (eg. in a patient with severe facial trauma). Of course, the criteria also required that factors such as hypothermia or presence of CNS depressant drugs be excluded. In practice, the criteria reduced the minimum period required for determination of braindeath from 24 hours down to 6 hours.
There was also another confounding factor. Though New York State already had a statute that stated braindeath equated to death (i.e. that once someone was declared braindead, they were officially dead), there were certain religious or cultural groups that did not accept the concept of braindeath. Hence, we required that all hospitals have in place a special accommodations for families of such religions. Usually this meant allowing families some time to spend with the patient after declaration of braindeath before the patient was actually removed from ventilatory support. Hospitals were required to specify what other treatments (IV fluids, feedings, antibiotics, vasopresors, etc.) would be suspended during that period.
New York State modified the braindeath determination criteria somewhat in the mid-2000’s and the AAN (American Academy of Neurology) published its updated braindeath determination criteria in 2010.
The new position paper states “The brain death standards for adults and children that are now widely accepted and used are the AANs 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults (Wijdicks 2010) and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children (Nakagawa 2011), issued by the Pediatric Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the Sections of Neurology and Critical Care, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Neurology Society.”
The current call for legislation is for all states to develop statutes that adopt the above criteria. To date, apparently only Nevada has formally adopted those criteria and gudelines.
AAN acknowledges that braindeath determination is a basically a clinical determination and that the primary role of any ancillary testing is to serve as a surrogate when portions of the clinical exam cannot otherwise be performed (for example, as above, due to severe facial trauma). AAN also reaffirms that, while accommodating for religious or cultural beliefs, there is no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased person. The AAN position paper has a good discussion about how to handle such accommodations. It also makes recommendations for transfer of care when a physician has objections to the braindeath determination concept based on religious or moral conscience.
AAN also encourages the development of programs that train and credential physicians who determine brain death and that public and professional education be provided regarding brain death and its determination. We mentioned before that some small, rural hospitals may not have a neurologist or neurosurgeon on staff to make braindeath determnations. But each hospital can have other physicians trained to do braindeath determinations. We do recommend that each hospital not only adopt the criteria but specify which physicians will be credentialled and privileged to do those determinations and what criteria will be required for that credentialing.
We concur with the AAN position paper that it is desirable that all states adopt legislation that would make the determination and process for braindeath determination uniform throughout the US.
References:
Russell JA, Epstein LG, Greer DM, et al. on behalf of the Brain Death Working Group. Brain death, the determination of brain death, and member guidance for brain death accommodation requests. AAN position statement. Neurology 2019; Published ahead of print January 02, 2019
http://n.neurology.org/content/neurology/early/2019/01/02/WNL.0000000000006750.full.pdf
Wijdicks EF, Varelas PN, Gronseth GS, Greer DM. Evidence-based guideline update: determining brain death in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2010 ; 74(23): 1911-1918 First published June 7, 2010
http://n.neurology.org/content/74/23/1911.long
Nakagawa TA, Ashwal S, Mathur M, Mysore M, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, Section on Critical Care and Section on Neurology of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children: An Update of the 1987 Task Force Recommendations. Pediatrics 2011; 128(3):
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/3/e720
(reaffirmed April 2015) Pediatrics 2015; 135(4): 31105
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/4/e1105
Print “February 2019 Call for Uniform Braindeath Criteria”
A California hospital was fined $30,000 for overlooking a serious case of constipation that led to significant patient morbidity (CDPH 2018). The patient did not have a bowel movement for 10 days. The patient had been prescribed numerous opioids known for causing constipation, yet, the facility waited 8 days after her last bowel movement to respond to her constipation symptoms. Ultimately, the patient had a toxic megacolon and required additional surgery.
CDPH noted the facility failed to develop a post-operative plan of care that included bowel care and failed to implement a care plan requiring assessment of pain medication side effects. It also failed to recognize a nursing diagnosis of severe constipation and intervene by promptly notifying the physician.
The patient was a 71 year old who was admitted to the hospital on 11/20/17 for lung surgery. A pre-operative note stated her last bowel movement was on 11/18/17. Post-operatively she was administered numerous opioid pain medications. She had no bowel movements postoperatively but a physician was first notified of the problem on 11/26/17. Then the physician’s orders for a stool softener and a twice daily laxative (milk of magnesia) were delayed 12 hours because the facility’s protocols for orders written after 9:00 AM defaulted to begin at 9:00 PM. Obstipation persisted and, on 11 /28/17, a nurse noted that the patient's abdomen was tender throughout, with no bowel sounds and was not passing gas. Multiple Fleet’s enemas were administered and the patient was given magnesium citrate and lactulose. After a soap suds enema on 11/29 there was “medium sized” bowel movement but a soap suds enema was repeated again with no results.
Multiple enemas followed by a Gastrografin enema and an attempt to try to decompress the bowel by use of suction through a tube were unsuccessful. White count progressively rose and follow up CT scan revealed persistent cecal dilatation. The patient returned to surgery on 11 /29/17 at 11 :30 PM to evacuate the colon, where it was discovered she had toxic megacolon (acute colonic distension characterized by a very dilated colon) with areas of ischemia.
Very timely was a recent article in ACP Hospitalist (Butterfield 2018) suggesting we approach constipation aggressively and offering tips on inpatient constipation (based on a talk Melissa Latorre, MD had given at American College of Gastroenterology 2018).
Dr. Latorre’s first tip is to be proactive. Rather than leaving orders for “prn” bowel care, she recommends standing orders for laxatives, with an opt-out policy to hold if the patient has had more than two bowel movements or is having diarrhea (keeping in mind that occasionally you might be fooled by “overflow” diarrhea).
She recommends both “induction” and “maintenance” therapies and “above” and “below” approaches. The induction phase may consist of an osmotic laxative such as polyethylene glycol, 17 g in 8 ounces of water, either two or three times a day, or colonoscopy prep if the patient can tolerate it. She avoids use of fiber or lactulose or oral stimulants upfront, because they may exacerbate symptoms like bloating, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension. From below, induction can include manual maneuvers and suppositories. “Glycerin may help to soften the stool and bisacodyl may help with rectal motility.” Once there has been a bowel movement, some enemas (mineral oil or tap water) may help.
Once the patient is eating again, a maintenance phase would include providing fiber, water or IV fluids, and oral laxatives. For those patients on opioids, an opiate-receptor antagonist may be indicated. Optimizing the patient's underlying medical condition is also important.
She also cautions that not all constipation is functional or opioid-induced. You always need to consider small-bowel obstruction, large-bowel obstruction, acute pseudo-obstruction, volvulus, toxic megacolon, and perforation. We especially refer you to our May 14, 2013 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (Ogilvie’s Syndrome)”.
She notes that postoperative ileus is also a common condition. But constipation beyond 4 days is of concern, particularly if two or more of the following are present: nausea, vomiting, inability to tolerate diet over the prior 24 hours, absence of flatus in the preceding 24 hours, abdominal distension, radiologic evidence. Management includes IV fluids, electrolyte repletion (especially potassium and magnesium), mobilization as tolerated, and nutritional support. Anti-emetics or laxatives may be needed for symptomatic relief. You should try to identify any drugs that may be exacerbating the problem. GI decompression might be appropriate for some patients (as we discussed in our column on Ogilvie’s Syndrome). Pharmaceutical interventions require some caution. Neostigmine is approved for acute pseudo-obstruction and large-bowel ileus but you must closely monitor patients for severe bradycardia and bronchospasm. Alvimopan is FDA-approved to accelerate upper and lower GI recovery following a partial small-bowel resection with primary anastomosis but carries a black box warning about the risk of myocardial infarction.
Butterfield also ends the ACP Hospitalist article with Latorre’s comment that chewing gum has also been reported to be of some benefit!
While we generally recommend that standardized order sets avoid “prn” orders for certain things that may not be necessary during a hospital stay (such as sleep medications), there are clearly patients at risk for constipation in whom proactive standing orders make sense. It is particularly important that such do address constipation in patients who are prescribed opioids, particularly following surgery. We like the approach Latorre has outlined.
References:
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). Complaint Intake Number: CA00563555. CDPH 2018; December 6, 2018
Butterfield S. Approach constipation aggressively. An expert speaking at American College of Gastroenterology 2018 gave tips on inpatient constipation. ACP Hospitalist 2018; December 2018
http://acphospitalist.org/archives/2018/12/approach-constipation-aggressively.htm
Print “February 2019 Constipation Costs Hospital”
We’ve reminded our anesthesiology colleagues in a couple columns that they have a role in preventing surgical site infections (see our December 28, 2010 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “HAI’s: Looking In All The Wrong Places” and our August 2012 What's New in the Patient Safety World column “Anesthesiology and Surgical Infections”).
Now SHEA (Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America) has just published an expert guidance on “Infection prevention in the operating room anesthesia work area” (Munoz-Price 2018)
The recommendations for hand hygiene are that it should be performed, at a minimum:
They also recommend anesthesia providers should consider wearing double gloves during airway management, remove the outer gloves immediately after airway manipulation, and remove the inner gloves and perform hand hygiene as soon as possible.
They recommend facilities locate alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) dispensers at the entrances to ORs and near anesthesia providers inside the OR in order to promote frequent hand hygiene. Wearable ABHR dispensers with audible reminders increased the frequency of hand hygiene in several studies, as well as having the potential to decrease the incidence of HAI’s. They also stress the importance of delegating responsibility for filling of the ABHR dispensers to designated personnel and regularly ensure compliance with this practice.
They did not take a position on the question of whether applying ABHR’s over gloves that have been worn in a case is an acceptable alternative to removing the gloves, performing hand hygiene, and regloving with new sterile gloves (citing lack of evidence for or against).
They then had a series of recommendations regarding disinfection and/or sterilization of instruments and work areas:
Standard direct laryngoscope or video-laryngoscope reusable handles and blades should undergo high-level disinfection (at the minimum) or sterilization prior to use, or that reusable laryngoscopes are replaced with single-use standard direct laryngoscopes or video-laryngoscopes. Clean blades and handles should be stored in packaging appropriate for semicritical items designated for “high-level” disinfection.
High-touch surfaces on the anesthesia machine and anesthesia work area should
be cleaned and disinfected between OR uses with an EPA-approved hospital disinfectant that is compatible with the equipment and surfaces based on the manufacturers’ instruction for use. There should be prioritization of cleaning of the specific components
that are most likely to be contaminated. Monitoring equipment such as reusable blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeter probes, electrocardiogram (ECG) leads, twitch monitor leads and sensors, and cables that are in physical contact with patients should receive high priority for thorough cleaning They note that single-use monitoring sensors may be useful for reducing the cleaning burden. The anesthesia machine work surface, gas flow controls, vaporizer dials, adjustable pressure limiting valve (APL), IV stands and fluid warmers, supply cart, and computer keyboard and mouse, are also examples of components that are particularly likely to be contaminated.
Then they make recommendation regarding IV’s, access ports, and other items related to vascular access and injection practices. Only disinfected ports should be used for intravenous access. Medication vials’ rubber stoppers and necks of ampules should be wiped with 70% alcohol prior to vial access and medication withdrawal. All central venous catheters (CVCs) and axillary and femoral arterial lines should be placed with full maximal sterile barrier precautions. Full maximal sterile barrier precautions include wearing mask, cap, sterile gown, and sterile gloves and using a large sterile drape during insertion. Peripheral arterial lines (eg, radial, brachial, or dorsalis pedis arterial lines) should be placed with a minimum of a cap, mask, sterile gloves, and a small sterile fenestrated drape.
IV drug injection recommendations include using syringes and vials for only one patient; and that injection ports and vial stoppers should only be accessed after disinfection. Any provider-prepared sterile injectable drugs should be used as soon as practicable following preparation. And the time between spiking IV bags and patient administration should be minimized.
After each case there should be cleaning and disinfection of computer keyboards and touchscreen computer monitors, using a hospital-approved disinfectant consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations. Cleaning and disinfection should also occur every
time there is obvious soiling or contamination of anesthesia work surfaces.
They also have recommendations for dealing with patients on contact isolation, including performing hand hygiene and using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), and performing environmental disinfection that follows recommendations regarding cleaning between cases, irrespective of an individual patient’s multidrugresistant organism status.
The recommendations also note the importance of leadership and champions and having goals to have an effective infection control program. They stress audit and feedback, particularly for hand hygiene practices.
The guidance was endorsed by the SHEA Board of Trustees, the American Academy of Anesthesiologist Assistants (AAAA), AANA, the Association for periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN), and APSF, with a letter of support from ASA.
There are a few things we would have liked to see in these guidelines as well. We still often see anesthesiologists (and other OR personnel) having lunch in the cafeteria wearing surgical “scrubs”. The guidance makes no mention about OR garb. Nor does it mention that OR garb should be laundered in the facility laundry, not taken home to be laundered. And it does not mention the role the anesthesia providers can play in limiting OR foot traffic and door opening, which are factors that can increase the risk of surgical infections. And perhaps some more comments about stethoscopes, given a recent article about widespread contamination of stethoscopes in ICU’s (Knecht 2018). And what about those everpresent cellphones?
Some of our other columns on handwashing and hand hygiene:
January 5, 2010 “How’s Your Hand Hygiene?”
December 28, 2010 “HAI’s: Looking In All The Wrong Places”
May 24, 2011 “Hand Hygiene Resources”
October 2011 “Another Unintended Consequence of Hand Hygiene Device?”
March 2012 “Smile…You’re on Candid Camera”
August 2012 “Anesthesiology and Surgical Infections”
October 2013 “HAI’s: Costs, WHO Hand Hygiene, etc.”
November 18, 2014 “Handwashing Fades at End of Shift, ?Smartwatch to the Rescue”
January 20, 2015 “He Didn’t Wash His Hands After What!”
September 2015 “APIC’s New Guide to Hand Hygiene Programs”
November 2015 “Hand Hygiene: Paradoxical Solution?”
April 2016 “Nudge: An Example for Hand Hygiene”
August 2016 “Hand Hygiene: Who’s Watching? Does it Matter?”
September 2016 “More on Preventing HAI’s”
July 18, 2017 “Another Hazard from Alcohol-Based Hand Gels”
Some of our prior columns on HAI’s (hospital-acquired infections):
December 28, 2010 “HAI’s: Looking In All The Wrong Places”
October 2013 “HAI’s: Costs, WHO Hand Hygiene, etc.”
February 2015 “17% Fewer HAC’s: Progress or Propaganda?”
April 2016 “HAI’s: Gaming the System?”
September 2016 “More on Preventing HAI’s”
November 2018 “Privacy Curtains Shared Rooms and HAI’s”
December 2018 “HAI Rates Drop”
January 2019 “Oral Decontamination Strategy Fails”
References:
Munoz-Price LS, Bowdle A, Johnston L, et al. Infection prevention in the operating room anesthesia work area. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018; Published online: 11 December 2018
Knecht VR, McGinniss JE, Shankar HM, et al. Molecular analysis of bacterial contamination on stethoscopes in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018; . published online December 12, 2018
Print “February 2019 Infection Prevention for Anesthesiologists”
As we pretty much anticipated (see our October 2018 What's New in the Patient Safety World column “Nurse Staffing Legislative Efforts”), the recent legislative initiative in Massachusetts to mandate nursing staffing levels failed. We were concerned that the uncertain costs of implementing this legislation would lead to it being voted down and that a potentially useful strategy for improving patient care would be lost. We felt it would have been more politically expedient for Massachusetts to have funded a semi-controlled study in which the state would select a representative sample of different types of hospital (academic, community, rural, etc.) and foot the cost of any upgraded staffing there (CMS and other third party payers could also have contributed to such funding) and then compare patient outcomes against all the other hospitals. But that didn’t happen and Massachusetts voted “no” on the proposal.
It’s been almost 2 decades since California passed the first law mandating minimum nurse:patient staffing levels. But we continue to debate this topic even today.
You’ll recall that a seminal study by Aiken and colleagues found that each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% increase in the likelihood of dying within 30 days of admission and a 7% increase in the odds of failure-to-rescue (Aiken 2002).
Last year the results of a study assessing the impact of a Massachusetts law, which required a 1:1 or 2:1 patient-to-nurse staffing ratio in intensive care units were published (Law 2018). The researchers compared staffing levels and mortality and certain patient complications between Massachusetts ICU’s and out-of-state ICU’s. There actually were only modest increases in ICU nurse staffing ratios in Massachusetts (from 1.38 patients per nurse before implementation to 1.28 patients per nurse after) and those staffing increases were largely mirrored in other states that did not have the mandate. Massachusetts ICU nurse staffing regulations were not associated with changes in hospital mortality within Massachusetts or when compared with changes in hospital mortality in other states. Complications and DNR orders also remained on either staffing levels or patient outcomes. We might have predicted that, because ICU’s are already staffed at high levels, we would not see much change.
But since then, there has been another study linking poor nursing staffing levels to increased patient mortality. A study in the UK (Griffiths 2018) looked at in-hospital mortality in relation to nursing staffing, comparing those with staffing levels above to those below the mean staffing level. They found the hazard of death was increased by 3% for every day a patient experienced RN staffing below the ward mean. Each additional hour of RN care available over the first 5 days of a patient’s stay was associated with 3% reduction in the hazard of death. And, days where admissions per RN exceeded 125% of the ward mean were associated with an increased hazard of death (aHR 1.05). Although low nursing assistant staffing was associated with increases in mortality, high nursing assistant staffing was also associated with increased mortality.
We fully support legislation that raises nurse:patient staffing ratios. But the issue is more complex than simple nurse:patient ratios. Those ratios do not take into account actual nurse workload nor do they take into account the fatigue factor that may accompany long work shifts or forced overtime. One factor that comes into play in those conditions is the concept of “missed nursing care” or “care left undone” (see our Patient Safety Tips of the Week for November 26, 2013 “Missed Care: New Opportunities?” and May 9, 2017 “Missed Nursing Care and Mortality Risk”).
We discussed the issue of nursing workload in detail in our Patient Safety Tips of the Week for March 6, 2018 “Nurse Workload and Mortality” and May 29, 2018 “More on Nursing Workload and Patient Safety”. In those columns we discussed the issue of how to best measure workload.
A prospective study in a level IV NICU in a Midwestern academic medical center evaluated the association between nurse workload and missed nursing care (Tubbs-Cooley 2018). Workload was assessed each shift with objective measures (infant-to-nurse staffing ratio and infant acuity scores) and a subjective measure (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]). They found a significant worsening association of increased NASA-TLX subjective workload ratings with odds of missed care (eg, each 5-point increase in a nurse’s NASA-TLX rating during a shift was associated with a 34% increase in the likelihood of missing a nursing assessment for his or her assigned infants during the same shift). The authors conclude that subjective workload represents an important aspect of nurse workload that remains largely unmeasured despite high potential for intervention.
Another study, conducted in the US (Brooks Carthon 2019), surveyed nurses in almost 600 hospitals in 4 states and looked at factors that led to nurses giving their hospital poor or failing patient safety grades. A 1-unit increase in “engagement” lowered the odds of an unfavorable safety grade by 29%. Hospitals where nurses reported higher levels of engagement were 19% less likely to report that mistakes were held against them. And, nurses in poorly staffed hospitals were 6% more likely to report that important information about patients “fell through the cracks” when transferring patients across units.
Most of the studies on missed care have come from med/surg units or ICU’s. A recent study administered the MISSCARE questionnaire (see our May 9, 2017 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Missed Nursing Care and Mortality Risk”) to nurses in a cancer center (Villamin 2019). Frequently perceived elements of missed nursing care were ambulation, turning every 2 hours, and care conference attendance. Surgical units reported 0.24 higher scores than medical units, and hematology units reported 0.26 lower scores than surgical units. The authors note that the findings suggest that perceived missed care in a comprehensive cancer center is similar to that in other hospital settings.
We continue to be strong believers that nursing staffing levels do influence patient outcomes. But as we’ve discussed in so many prior columns, there needs to be a match between staffing levels and nursing workload. Patient acuity is only one potential component of workload. In our prior columns we noted several tools that have been used as better measures of nursing workload. The time has come for a randomized study that compares current staffing practices with practices that take into account nursing workload. Such a study will not be easy to do. First, you need to decide the unit of randomization (will it be at the hospital level, or do you compare ICU vs. ICU, or med/surg unit vs. med/surg unit). Then you need to apply an appropriate measure of workload. And, the most difficult task will be determining how the intervention (that is, adjusting the nurse staffing each day or each shift based upon the workload measure) will be implemented. Lastly, it will be difficult to exclude some element of bias. We would anticipate that more nurses may try to be scheduled to work on the “intervention” units because they may anticipate a better work environment. The latter may be a reason to randomize at the hospital, rather than unit, level but it would likely be more difficult to account for confounding factors (patient severity, socioeconomic factors, etc.) at the hospital level.
Some of our other columns on nursing workload and missed nursing care/care left undone:
November 26, 2013 “Missed Care: New Opportunities?”
May 9, 2017 “Missed Nursing Care and Mortality Risk”
March 6, 2018 “Nurse Workload and Mortality”
May 29, 2018 “More on Nursing Workload and Patient Safety”
October 2018 “Nurse Staffing Legislative Efforts”
References:
Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, et al. Hospital Nurse Staffing and Patient Mortality, Nurse Burnout, and Job Dissatisfaction. JAMA 2002; 288(16): 1987-1993
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195438
Law AC, Stevens JP, Hohmann S, et al. Patient Outcomes After the Introduction of Statewide ICU Nurse Staffing Regulations. Critical Care Medicine 2018; 46(10): 1563-1569
Griffiths P, Maruotti A, Recio Saucedo A, et al. on behalf of the Missed Care Study Group. Nurse staffing, nursing assistants and hospital mortality: retrospective longitudinal cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; Published Online First: 04 December 2018
https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2018/11/25/bmjqs-2018-008043
Tubbs-Cooley HL, Mara CA, Carle AC, et al. Association of Nurse Workload With Missed Nursing Care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. JAMA Pediatr 2018; Published online November 12, 2018
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2714281
Brooks Carthon JM, Hatfield L, Plover C, et al. Association of Nurse Engagement and Nurse Staffing on Patient Safety. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 2019; 34(1): 40-46
Villamin C, Anderson J, Fellman B, et al. Perceptions of Missed Care Across Oncology Nursing Specialty Units. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 2019; 34(1): 47-53
Print “February 2019 Nurse Staffing, Workload, Missed Care, Mortality”
Print “February 2019 What's New in the Patient Safety World (full column)”
Print “February 2019 Call for Uniform Braindeath Criteria”
Print “February 2019 Constipation Costs Hospital”
Print “February 2019 Infection Prevention for Anesthesiologists”
Print “February 2019 Nurse Staffing, Workload, Missed Care, Mortality”
Go to the "Whats New Archive"
To get "What's New in the Patient Safety World"emailed to you,click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
To get "What's New in the Patient Safety World"emailed to you,click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
Copyright 2012 The Truax Group Healthcare Consulting Patient Safety Solutions Tools Tips & Resources. All rights reserved.
PO Box 1230
Grantham, NH 03753
ph: 716-550-1106
btruax