Identification of enteral nutrition errors in a single‐center quality‐improvement audit

Background Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy is a multistep process including evaluation, prescription, procurement, dispensing, labeling, administration, and monitoring. EN therapy is prone to human errors, but these are poorly defined in the literature. The purpose of this study was to audit EN admin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nutrition in clinical practice 2024-04, Vol.39 (2), p.470-474
Hauptverfasser: Schwarz, Elise, Nass, Olivia, Giocondo, Vanessa, Kozeniecki Schneider, Michelle L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy is a multistep process including evaluation, prescription, procurement, dispensing, labeling, administration, and monitoring. EN therapy is prone to human errors, but these are poorly defined in the literature. The purpose of this study was to audit EN administration practices to quantify errors of execution and identify which components of the EN order were labeled, administered, or documented incorrectly. Methods On 2 nonconsecutive days, we identified all hospitalized patients with active EN orders and prospectively collected the following information: EN formula hanging/documented, formula hang time, infusion rate/documented rate (continuous EN), infused volume and documented schedule (intermittent EN), and EN modular documentation. Mismatches to the EN order were considered errors. We reviewed 1 month of hospital EN‐related safety events for comparison. Results Of 1045 data points collected from 160 patients, we identified 275 errors of execution: 135 labeling errors and 140 administration errors. The most common were hang time >48 h (85%), wrong number of modulars documented (48%), and wrong infusion rate (19%). We found one reported safety event (wrong formula delivered but not infused). Conclusion We identified a 15.9% error rate in EN order execution/documentation and 14% compliance with documentation of 48‐h hang time. Errors (safety events) were grossly underreported. This highlighted several areas of opportunity to improve current EN use process, consistent with previous research on EN and oral nutrition supplement administration. Based on our findings, we plan to recommend implementation of EN barcoding at our institution, to model the familiar medication administration record.
ISSN:0884-5336
1941-2452
DOI:10.1002/ncp.11076