Your unit data reflect an upward trend in blood administration errors

NUR 630 Topic 3 DQ 1

Blood administration errors are dangerous medical errors that can have many risk factors for patients and long-lasting effects. Often, people fear the blood products being administered, such as the incorrect product, blood typing issues, and other mistakes made during that initial process. Unfortunately, nearly 70% of blood administration errors occur at the bedside rather than that actual problems with the actual blood products (Najafpour et al., 2017). Due to the high statistics, it is likely a combination of the two. It is both an individual error and a system failure. Ultimately, the system needs to be assessed due to the individual failure that is occurring. There is a variety of reasons why these errors are occurring. Oftentimes, nurses have many other patients that are caring for therefore they cannot focus on just that patient during administration which can be dangerous for the patient and the nurse. It is easy for an organization to draw conclusions that the nurses are to blame yet critical staffing shortages can greatly contribute to a problem such as this one. Patients who quickly change in their acuity level and suddenly require additional care can be difficult to staff correctly. This system is also to blame for the high occurrences that happen in these errors.

Lewin’s Three-Step Model for Change is a model that transforms care and changes dynamics within the healthcare system (Wojciechowski et al., 2016). This model consists of unfreezing, changing/moving, and refreezing to make a necessary change within the organization (Wojciechowski et al., 2016). The most important step is discussing the problem and what type of change is needed. The changing/moving stage consists of discovering what is the best solution to the problem followed by refreezing which is creating lasting change and taking an active approach (Wojciechowski et al., 2016). This is an example of a model that could be used to address the problem of blood administration and how these errors can be decreased by presenting the problem, brainstorming possible solutions, and carrying out the necessary change.

References

Najapour, Z., Hasoumi, M., Behzadi, F., Mohamadi, E., Jafary, M., & Saeedi, M. (2017). Preventing blood transfusion failures: FMEA, an effective assessment method. National Library of Medicine National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2380-3

Wojciechowski, E., Pearsall, T., Murphy, P., & French, E. (2016). A case review: Integrating Lewin’s theory with lean’s system approach for change. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. https://doi:10.3912/OJIN/Vol21No02Man04

ALSO READ:

Describe at least two limitations to both primary and secondary data and how understanding those limitations can improve your future CQI work

What is the difference between primary and secondary data?

Choose the two elements that you feel are the most difficult to achieve and provide one strategy for each that will make them achievable.

What two elements do you believe play the most significant role in sustaining change and why?

Topic 1 DQ 1: Society for Human Resource Management

It is important to ensure that a candidate fitsâ€¯into the culture of the organization.

What formal and informal onboarding or assimilation processes exist in your organization or an organization with which you are familiar?

What do you think is most necessary for learning to occur in your current organization?

A rising trend in blood administration errors is likely to be an individual failure since clerical errors primarily contribute to transfusion errors. The common clerical errors include mislabeled blood samples, blood samples collected from the wrong patient, reversal of specimen samples in the laboratory, and incorrect blood component administration (Vahidi et al., 2021). Besides, individual errors in identification and verification at the patient bedside result in increased blood transfusion errors. Blood administration errors mainly occur if the administering nurse does not confirm the right patient, right blood product, and ABO compatibility in the patient (Vahidi et al., 2021). As a result, even if the blood is labeled appropriately, it is transfused to someone other than the correct recipient. The nurses could be failing to follow blood administration procedures, including identifying a patient with two unique identifiers.

The Rapid improvement model (RIM) can address individual failures in blood administration. RIM is a quick method of enhancing work processes, which enables teams to implement a small change, test and evaluate it, and then accept if effective or reject if ineffective (Smith & Johnson, 2019). It is a quality improvement approach that identifies, executes, and evaluates changes made to enhance a process or a system. The model proposes implementing and testing changes over three months or less. RIM can be used to improve the process of blood administration by first establishing the improvements desired and defining how we want to change the process of administering blood (Smith & Johnson, 2019). The next step will be to identify the measures to assess whether the changes made have improved the blood administration process. The last step will be to establish the changes that will help reduce blood administration errors. We will evaluate the options that are most likely to work and identify what other organizations have done t

o minimize the errors.

References

Smith, C. M., & Johnson, C. S. (2019). Preparing nurse leaders in nursing professional development: Quality improvement in nursing professional development. Journal for nurses in professional development, 35(4), 222-224. doi: 10.1097/NND.0000000000000540

Vahidi, S., Mirhashemi, S. H., Hashemi, B., Noorbakhsh, M., & Molavi-Taleghani, Y. (2021). Improvement in Blood Transfusion Safety: Using Root Cause Analysis. Journal of Comprehensive Pediatrics, (In Press). DOI : 10.5812/compreped.99088

When errors involving an entire process or procedure begin to suddenly increase, the cause is usually the process or system itself that is responsible for the failure. This is especially true when processes, procedures, or systems are recently updated with new steps for employees to follow. After such changes, when errors are experienced with that process, it’s far more likely to occur from lack of education or training on the new process rather than unintended human error. When systems are not set up properly, making it easy for users to do things correctly, failures tend to occur.

To address such errors within a process, procedure or system, it is first necessary to determine the root cause of the errors. Through a systematic process of investigations, interviews, and analysis of data, internal and external factors that caused individuals to deviate from the system processes can be identified (Singh et al., 2023). Root cause analysis is the chosen method because it aims identify system process issues rather than assigning individual blame, as looking at errors individually will not always reveal the true root cause (Singh et al., 2023). Once the root cause(s) of the errors are identified, work can be done to correct the issues to prevent them from reoccurring and causing more patient harm. In most cases, and probably in this one as well, more training and education would be required so that staff are familiar with and are able to properly execute all steps in the process to ensure safe administration of blood products.

References:

Singh, G., Patel, R., & Boster, J. (2023, May). Root Cause Analysis and medical error prevention. StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570638/#:~:text=Root%20cause%20analysis%20(RCA)%20is,result%20in%20a%20sentinel%20event.

The literature identifies that the most frequent error leading to transfusion of ABO-incompatible blood occurs during patient identification/verification at the bedside (Barnhard, 2020). Blood administration process is highly regulated and consists of numerous steps that were designed to ensure a safe process. Hospitals must set their own process that would meet the standards that protect patients from an ABO-incompatible red blood cell transfusion (Barnhard, 2020). Our organization has a policy on blood transfusion administration that is reviewed every couple of years to ensure that it meets the requirements.

If it has been identified that there was a trend in blood transfusion errors in the unit, root-cause analysis (RCA) should be performed on systems and processes to identify strategies to reduce the of similar events occurring in the future (Johnson & Sollecito, 2020). The textbook defines RCA as a process for identifying the factors that underline variation in performance (Johnson & Sollecito, 2020). This process will allow the team to look at the whole picture and not just concentrate on one individual performance. If the adverse event happened with one person, there is no guarantee that it couldn’t have happened with another person. By repeatedly asking the question “why?” the process can dig deeper into the event and identify the risk points that potentially contributed to the particular adverse event. This will help decide the possible changes that can make the system or the process safer in the future. RCA will also assist with identifying if there was a performance issue and therefore, an individual failure.

As a nurse manager, I had several opportunities to complete intensive analysis (IA) and RCA. As a result of the investigation, we created an action plan. Often, IA or RCA results in re-educating the staff or implementing new processes. For example, when a stage three pressure ulcer was identified on the unit, as an action plan, we reviewed hospital policy on skin breakdown prevention and utilization of the appropriate bed surfaces with all unit staff. We also implemented strict turning every two hours by announcing the time to turn our patients. We continuously audited staff compliance to reach the goal of decreasing the number of pressure ulcers in the unit.

References:

Barnhard, S. (2020). “This is the wrong patient’s blood!”: Evaluating a hear-miss wrong transfusion event. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/web-mm/wrong-patients-blood-evaluating-near-miss-wrong-transfusion-event

Johnson J. K., & Sollecito, W. A. (2020). Continuous quality improvement in health care (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN-13: 9781284126594

Grid View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting	45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammati cal errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response	17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sour ces are cited.	0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response	16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	12 (12%) – 13 (1 3%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses po sted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Your unit data reflect an upward trend in blood administration errors

Lopes Write Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.

Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, pun

ctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.

Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?

Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.

Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.

Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.

If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.

I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.

As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.

Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:

Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.

Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation

Welcome to class

Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to

I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.

Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.

If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.

Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.

Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.

I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Hi Class,

Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts.

Contact me if you have any questions.

Important information on Writing a Discussion Question

Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references)
There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article.
Include in-text citations in your response
Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information
Follow APA-7th edition
Points will be deducted if the above is not followed

Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor

A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week.
Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article
Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references)
Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count.
Follow APA 7th edition
Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points.
Here are some helpful links
Student paper example
Citing Sources
The Writing Center is a great resource