TY - JOUR
T1 - Prevalence of Errors in Anaphylaxis in Kids (PEAK)
T2 - A Multicenter Simulation-Based Study
AU - the PEAK investigators of the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, & Education (INSPIRE)
AU - Maa, Tensing
AU - Scherzer, Daniel J.
AU - Harwayne-Gidansky, Ilana
AU - Capua, Tali
AU - Kessler, David O.
AU - Trainor, Jennifer L.
AU - Jani, Priti
AU - Damazo, Becky
AU - Abulebda, Kamal
AU - Diaz, Maria Carmen G.
AU - Sharara-Chami, Rana
AU - Srinivasan, Sushant
AU - Zurca, Adrian D.
AU - Deutsch, Ellen S.
AU - Hunt, Elizabeth A.
AU - Auerbach, Marc
AU - Lee Song, Joo
AU - Wing, Robyn
AU - Teman, Susan
AU - Rodriguez-Nunez, Antonio
AU - Schneider, Carisa
AU - Mercurio, Danielle
AU - Gutierrez, Christie
AU - Gaba, Michelle
AU - Joyner, Benny L.
AU - Vukin, Elizabeth S.
AU - Henricksen, Jared
AU - Knight, Lynda
AU - Wood, Trish
AU - England, Renee
AU - Cochran, Christina
AU - Andler, Caroline
AU - Muñoz-Pareja, Jennifer
AU - Lordemann, Anja Grosse
AU - Biddell, Elizabeth
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - Background: Multi-institutional, international practice variation of pediatric anaphylaxis management by health care providers has not been reported. Objective: To characterize variability in epinephrine administration for pediatric anaphylaxis across institutions, including frequency and types of medication errors. Methods: A prospective, observational, study using a standardized in situ simulated anaphylaxis scenario was performed across 28 health care institutions in 6 countries. The on-duty health care team was called for a child (patient simulator) in anaphylaxis. Real medications and supplies were obtained from their actual locations. Demographic data about team members, institutional protocols for anaphylaxis, timing of epinephrine delivery, medication errors, and systems safety issues discovered during the simulation were collected. Results: Thirty-seven in situ simulations were performed. Anaphylaxis guidelines existed in 41% (15 of 37) of institutions. Teams used a cognitive aid for medication dosing 41% (15 of 37) of the time and 32% (12 of 37) for preparation. Epinephrine autoinjectors were not available in 54% (20 of 37) of institutions and were used in only 14% (5 of 37) of simulations. Median time to epinephrine administration was 95 seconds (interquartile range, 77-252) for epinephrine autoinjector and 263 seconds (interquartile range, 146-407.5) for manually prepared epinephrine (P =.12). At least 1 medication error occurred in 68% (25 of 37) of simulations. Nursing experience with epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis was associated with fewer preparation (P =.04) and administration (P =.01) errors. Latent safety threats were reported by 30% (11 of 37) of institutions, and more than half of these (6 of 11) involved a cognitive aid. Conclusions: A multicenter, international study of simulated pediatric anaphylaxis reveals (1) variation in management between institutions in the use of protocols, cognitive aids, and medication formularies, (2) frequent errors involving epinephrine, and (3) latent safety threats related to cognitive aids among multiple sites.
AB - Background: Multi-institutional, international practice variation of pediatric anaphylaxis management by health care providers has not been reported. Objective: To characterize variability in epinephrine administration for pediatric anaphylaxis across institutions, including frequency and types of medication errors. Methods: A prospective, observational, study using a standardized in situ simulated anaphylaxis scenario was performed across 28 health care institutions in 6 countries. The on-duty health care team was called for a child (patient simulator) in anaphylaxis. Real medications and supplies were obtained from their actual locations. Demographic data about team members, institutional protocols for anaphylaxis, timing of epinephrine delivery, medication errors, and systems safety issues discovered during the simulation were collected. Results: Thirty-seven in situ simulations were performed. Anaphylaxis guidelines existed in 41% (15 of 37) of institutions. Teams used a cognitive aid for medication dosing 41% (15 of 37) of the time and 32% (12 of 37) for preparation. Epinephrine autoinjectors were not available in 54% (20 of 37) of institutions and were used in only 14% (5 of 37) of simulations. Median time to epinephrine administration was 95 seconds (interquartile range, 77-252) for epinephrine autoinjector and 263 seconds (interquartile range, 146-407.5) for manually prepared epinephrine (P =.12). At least 1 medication error occurred in 68% (25 of 37) of simulations. Nursing experience with epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis was associated with fewer preparation (P =.04) and administration (P =.01) errors. Latent safety threats were reported by 30% (11 of 37) of institutions, and more than half of these (6 of 11) involved a cognitive aid. Conclusions: A multicenter, international study of simulated pediatric anaphylaxis reveals (1) variation in management between institutions in the use of protocols, cognitive aids, and medication formularies, (2) frequent errors involving epinephrine, and (3) latent safety threats related to cognitive aids among multiple sites.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076575209&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076575209&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 31770652
AN - SCOPUS:85076575209
SN - 2213-2198
VL - 8
SP - 1239-1246.e3
JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
IS - 4
ER -