View as “PDF version”
Parenteral nutrition
(PN), often called total parenteral nutrition or TPN, is a valuable therapy we
use in most hospital settings and other medical venues. But it has largely
escaped our attention from a patient safety perspective. That’s surprising
since PN issues played a significant contributory role in the Josey King tragedy
(Niedowski 2003)
that was a seminal event in the patient safety movement. And we’ve often seen
complications related to the catheters and lines used to administer PN.
A great review of parenteral nutrition safety issues was
just recently published (Mirtallo 2020) and it sure opened our
eyes! Pharmacists Jay Mirtallo and Phil Ayers begin
by acknowledging that adverse events (AEs) related to PN are rarely reported
but are likely to be associated with harm when they do occur.
They go on to describe the components of the PN system: assessment
by dietician or nutrition support service, determination of indication for PN, order,
review and verification of order, compounding and preparation of the PN,
dispensing (which includes labeling and delivery), administration by a nurse or
caregiver (includes patient ID verification and ensuring appropriate access, infusion
rate, pump function, and infection control measures), monitoring (the venous
access device, metabolic response, disease outcomes), and again restarting the
cycle with assessment. Similar
to the medication use
process, each of these steps presents an opportunity for error, so it’s
surprising we don’t hear about more errors in the PN process. Each step also
requires documentation, which also gives rise to opportunities for error if
that documentation is not accessible (or simply ignored) by all parties on the
overall process or if the terminology between systems is not compatible.
The authors cite statistics from studies they had
previously been a part of. One study (Sacks
2009) had found an overall incidence of
medication errors to be 15.6 errors/1000 parenteral nutrition prescriptions
compounded. Of those errors, 1% occurred during the prescription process (and was
detected before preparation), 39% occurred during the transcription process,
24% during preparation, and 35% during the administration process. Most errors
(91%) were considered nonharmful, but 8% contributed to or resulted in temporary
harm to a patient.
The second study (Seres 2006)
reported on a survey by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral
Nutrition (ASPEN). Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents reported observing
1 to 5 PN-related errors per month. 71% of errors were related to PN
electrolytes. Respondents estimated that 35% of the errors required increased
monitoring, 25% resulted in harm, 3.3% were almost fatal, and 1.5% were fatal.
Another review (Mirtallo 2004)
found the following serious outcomes resulting from PN errors:
ISMP’s Michael Cohen, writing in JPEN (Cohen
2012), noted the following issues
in parenteral nutrition:
Another review on PN
errors reported in ISMP’s MEDMARX system (Storey 2016)
found many errors related to omission of ingredients. Fat emulsions and
electrolytes were the PN ingredients most frequently associated with error.
Insulin was the ingredient most often associated with patient harm. While
omission occurred in all modes, it was most common in ordering and
transcribing.
Earlier this month, in our What's New in the Patient Safety World column “More Gems from ISMP”, we noted 2 recent ISMP articlesTargeted Medication Safety Best Practices for HospitalsISMP 2020a
Then, in its Top 10 Medication Errors and Hazards (ISMP
2020b), number 10 was that
1,000-fold overdoses with zinc can occur with parenteral nutrition, particularly
in children. They cite a case in 2019 involving a child for whom 700 mg instead
of 700 mcg of zinc was prescribed when the pediatric PN template defaulted to
mg dosing units. They note that this order could not have been changed to mcg
had the physician even noticed the error, and that a dose warning was not
issued during the prescribing process. (ISMP had reported a very similar case
of zinc overdose due to using mg rather than mcg in its September 6, 2007
Safety Alert). ISMP advises all healthcare providers to build, test, and heed
maximum dose warnings in PN order entry systems. That should include a hard
stop for critical zinc overdoses (e.g., above 250 mcg/kg for pediatric
PN). Pediatric PN templates should default to mcg dosing units for zinc,
which should also correspond to the way orders are entered in automated
compounders. ISMP also encourages drug information database vendors to create
needed critical dose warnings for IV zinc and other trace elements, if they do
not currently exist.
That’s not the first time ISMP has noted problems related to
disparity between units used in order entry systems versus those used in
pharmacy compounding systems. In 2012 ISMP reported on a case in which orders
per kg were confused with orders per day, resulting in a patient receiving a very
hypotonic solution due to an unusually large amount of sterile water in the
preparation (ISMP
2012). ISMP again focused on
the need to standardize and match dosing units in the prescribing and pharmacy
systems. It also emphasized the importance of issuing warnings, using redundancies
and independent double checks in steps for verification, and providing clear
labelling.
ISMP’s recommendations were echoed in a call to action co-published
by the American Society of Health‐System Pharmacists (ASHP), the Academy
of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), and the American Society for Parenteral and
Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) (Vanek
2018). Key areas identified
by the work group for this publication were:
Catching errors before they cause harm in patients is
critical. In our March 13, 2018 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Intercepting
Errors” we noted a study that developed
an automated medication administration error detection system that focused on
reconciling 10 high-risk continuous intravenous infusions and medications
prescribed to NICU inpatients (Ni
2018). Among the targeted
medications/infusions, TPN had the second highest medication administration
error rate. The automated detection system has the potential to reduce harm
exposure significantly for all medications via real-time messaging technology.
The study showed the most substantial reductions were realized for long-time
intravenous medications/infusions such as TPN and lipid.
The current review
by Mirtallo and Ayers (Mirtallo 2020)
also notes that recent introduction of some new lipid injectable emulsions (ILE’s)
require development of new policies and procedures that take into account special
filtering and infusion requirements.
Discussion about CLABSI’s (central
line-associated bloodstream infections) is beyond the scope of today’s
column, but just be reminded that PN is a frequent reason for use of central
lines or PICC lines. Also, in our January 21, 2014 Patient Safety Tip of the
Week “The
PICC Myth” we noted that TPN was
one of several significant risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis
associated with PICC insertion (Marnejon 2012).
We have one other
consideration of our own: what happens when PN infusion is interrupted, either
intentionally or unintentionally, particularly when PN is being coordinated
with insulin administration? For example, suppose the line for infusing PN
becomes inoperable (eg. thrombosis) and the patient
is receiving a long-acting insulin. You need to have a protocol in place that
would alert you to the danger of hypoglycemia in this instance. That could especially
be a problem in patients receiving PN at home. On the other hand, suppose you
withhold insulin when you send a patient for a procedure in radiology or elsewhere.
You have to remember that the patient might be vulnerable
to hyperglycemia if the PN continues while the insulin was withheld.
This excellent review
by Mirtallo and Ayers (Mirtallo 2020)
really opened our eyes to a topic we’ve largely neglected. We’ll bet that many
of you do not even include data on PN errors in your Pharmacy & Therapeutics
review programs. We suspect your organizations can also benefit from the many
lessons and recommendations in the review.
References:
Niedowski
E. Medical error kills Hopkins cancer patient. The Baltimore Sun (2003); December
19, 2003
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2003-12-19-0312190182-story.html
Mirtallo
JM, Ayers P. Parenteral Nutrition Safety. Pharmacy Practice News 2020; April
15, 2020
https://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/Review-Articles/Article/04-20/Parenteral-Nutrition-Safety/57830
Sacks GS, Rough S, Kudsk KA. Frequency and severity of harm of medication
errors related to the parenteral nutrition pro-cess
in a large university teaching hospital. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29(8): 966-974
https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1592/phco.29.8.966
Seres
D, Sacks GS, Pedersen CA, et al. Parenteral nutrition safe practices: results
of the 2003 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Survey. JPEN
J Parenter Enteral Nutr
2006; 30(3): 259-265
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0148607106030003259
Mirtallo
J, Canada T, Johnson D, et al. Safe practices for parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2004; 28: s39-s70
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0148607104028006S39
Cohen MR. Safe
practices for compounding of parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter
Enteral Nutr. 2012; 36(suppl): 14s-19s
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0148607111435332
Storey
MA, Weber RJ, Besco K, et al. Evaluation of
parenteral nutrition errors in an era of drug shortages. Nutr
Clin Pract 2016; 31(2): 211-217
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0884533615608820
https://www.ismp.org/guidelines/best-practices-hospitals
ISMP (Institute for
Safe Medication Practices). Start the New Year Off Right by Preventing These
Top 10 Medication Errors and Hazards. ISMP 2020; January 16, 2020
ISMP (Institute for
Safe Medication Practices). Mismatched Prescribing and Pharmacy Templates for
Parenteral Nutrition (PN) Lead to Data Entry Errors. ISMP 2012; June 28, 2012
Vanek VW, Ayers P,
Kraft M et al. A call to action for optimizing the electronic health record in
the parenteral nutrition workflow. Nutr Clin Pract 2018; 33: e1-e21
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ncp.10095
Ni Y, Lingren T, Hall ES, et al. Designing and evaluating an
automated system for real-time medication administration error detection in a
neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association 2018; 25(5): 555-563 Published: 10 January 2018
https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/25/5/555/4797402
Marnejon
T, Angelo D, Abu Abdou A, Gemmel D. Risk factors for
upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central
venous catheters. J Vasc Access 2012; 13(2): 231-238
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.5301/jva.5000039
Print “PDF
version”
http://www.patientsafetysolutions.com/