IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01482521.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Three Methods for Dilution Accuracy of Intravenous ă Preparations

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Rios
  • Renaud Vialet

    (Réanimation Pédiatrique et Néonatale - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Nord)

  • Christine Dosmas
  • Anderson Loundou

    (Unité d'Aide Méthodologique - APHM - Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Marseille - CHU Marseille)

  • Fabrice Michel

    (CVN - Centre de vision numérique - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique - CentraleSupélec)

Abstract

Purpose: Dilutions of intravenous medications may be inaccurate. The ă mixing technique may be a crucial factor. ă Design: Three factors of dilution were tested: volume for dilution ă (large vs small), method for mixing (shaking vs inversion), and number ă of maneuvers (3 times vs 10). ă Methods: Dilutions of glucose in saline solution were made by nurses, ă after a random factorial plan. The judgment criteria were the comparison ă between measured (Cmes) and expected (Cexp) concentration. ă Finding: Cmes (n = 40) ranged from 89.5% to 123.6% of Cexp and was ă more accurate when made with a large volume (98.4% of Cexp vs 106.5%) ă and when mixed by inversion (100.6% of Cexp vs 104.6%). ă Conclusions: Inversion rather than shaking and dilution in a large ă volume is a simple procedure for bedside medication preparation that ă allows better accuracy. The 3 versus 10 mixing procedures resulted in ă the same accuracy, which may be important for these time-consuming ă procedures. These results should be confirmed in clinical situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Rios & Renaud Vialet & Christine Dosmas & Anderson Loundou & Fabrice Michel, 2016. "Comparing Three Methods for Dilution Accuracy of Intravenous ă Preparations," Post-Print hal-01482521, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01482521
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2014.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Quality;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01482521. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.