How can nurse best ensure patient safety when preparing insulin for administration?

References

Boyd C. Medicine management skills for nurses, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2022

02 March 2022

EQ. 1

SPSS statistical software version 19 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Ill.) was used. Although there is no generally accepted minimum value indicating agreement between two individuals, a value of ∼0.8 or higher generally is considered likely to indicate adequate agreement.

Results

Table 1 shows the κ statistics measuring agreement between the members (E, G, and F) of the observer pairs collecting data. As seen in the table, there was acceptable observational agreement on all parameters observed, with the highest (1.00) for “injection angle” (measuring whether the correct angle was employed throughout the injection process) and the lowest (0.794) for “air bubbles” (measuring whether the nurse took measures to prevent, inspect for, and manage air bubbles in the syringe). It should also be noted that the level of agreement was similar for all three pairs of observers.

TABLE 1.

κ Statistic for Each Pair of Data Collectors’ Observations

Clean, Washed Hands

Observations indicated that, in 61% of all instances, nursing staff washed their hands, of which 49% used antiseptic soap and water and 12% used alcohol or Sterillium (a commercial hand disinfectant) to clean their hands before starting aspiration of insulin. However, it was also observed that, before administering insulin, staff did not re-wash their hands or use gloves in 39% of instances. Furthermore, consecutive interviewing showed that reasons for violation of hand hygiene standards included the following: lack of sinks and taps in each room, limited access to detergent and clean towels, shortage of time, and heavy workload. On a personal note, some nurses complained that frequent washing dries out and cracks the skin on their hands. Furthermore, as revealed by the open-ended question, some staff argued that, “Once hands are cleaned, they stay clean.”

Use of Gloves

In most instances (70%), nurses who injected insulin used clean gloves; however, in 30% of instances, no gloves were used. Of the 77 instances in which gloves were used, the gloves were not changed between patients, even for noninjection tasks. This practice could potentially lead to cross-infection of hospitalized patients or increased dispersal of microorganisms because of poor handling. Interview data suggest that reasons for this poor glove practice are limited resources and a lack of appreciation for cross-infection risks.

Flacon Antisepsis

In the great majority of instances (104 [94.5%]), nurses did not clean the top of the flacon before inserting the needle, whereas in 6 instances (5.5%), this cleaning was performed adequately with the use of an alcohol swab.

Air Bubbles

In 64 instances (57.3%), nurses preparing insulin for injection checked for air bubbles in the syringe and consequently flicked it to remove them. In the remaining 47 observations (42.7%), it was noted that there was no discernable effort to inspect for or remedy air bubbles.

Location Check

Before administering insulin in most instances (89.1%), nurses did not check the injection site for appropriateness or for possible factors such as adequate cleanliness, intact skin, and absence of inflammation, swelling, redness, lipohypertrophy, lipoatrophy, or lipodystrophy. This was confirmed by student observations during which they noted that the nurse was too quick in choosing a site, forgot to ask the patient where the last injection was administered (which is not routinely recorded in the nursing notes), did not feel the area carefully (e.g., for hardness), or failed to instruct the observing students about the correct procedure for checking injection sites. This procedure was performed correctly on only 12 (10.9%) occasions.

Use of Antiseptic Solution

In 100 instances (90.9%), the skin was cleaned with an alcohol swab or Sterillium, whereas in 10 instances (9.1%), the injection site was not cleaned at all.

Angle of Needle

On 78 occasions (70.9%), the needle was placed vertically to the skin but without a skinfold. In the remaining 32 instances (29.1%), the needle was placed at a 45° angle, again without a skinfold.

Post-Injection Care

In 98 instances (89.1%), post-injection care was rated as poor because there was not adequate time before needle withdrawal or inspection of the site; instead, the insulin syringe was withdrawn immediately after injection administration. These measures were observed to be carried out in 12 instances (10.9%). Although most insulin package inserts recommend waiting for 5–6 seconds before withdrawing the needle, in Greece, there is no hospital protocol on this issue.

Discussion

The results of this observational study indicate that, overall, compliance with international guidelines regarding insulin administration technique, as observed in the two sample hospital wards, is not satisfactory. Nurses commented that, because of serious staff shortages and hence the large workload that exists in Greek hospitals, they often are unable to deal effectively with both insulin administration and the education of patients with diabetes.

Although the majority in this sample administered insulin with either clean, washed hands or gloves, this can be regarded as lip service to patients in that the majority did not change their gloves between patients or maintain clean hands throughout the procedure. Moran and Arnott (24) suggest that both clean, washed hands and the use of gloves should be practiced routinely within a hospital environment. Although these gloves are not sterile, it is recommended that they be used to help prevent the transfer of resident bacteria from the fingers to the vial or injection site, thus minimizing infection. As clearly observed, when multiple insulin withdrawals were made from a single vial and without the flacon top being disinfected between each withdrawal, microorganisms could potentially colonize in the contents of the vial.

The practice of disinfecting the flacon top before aspiration was not followed routinely by the majority of nurses in this sample. As explained in the confirmatory interviews, in most cases, this was not perceived to be “so important” clinically. Yet, according to the American Diabetes Association (25), wiping the rubber cover of the insulin vial with a 70% alcohol swab is a standardized measure for infection prevention.

As noted in the international literature, bubbles in the insulin syringe are considered dangerous because they can result in a lower dose of insulin and also are associated with localized pain (26). Rolling the vial rather than shaking it may reduce the risk of inconsistent concentrations of insulin and consequently minimize the likelihood of bubble formation in the syringe. Although the majority of this sample checked for air bubbles in the syringe, there was limited effort in taking measures to avoid air bubble formation, which would have saved time by making it unnecessary to flick the syringe to remove bubbles.

This study also yielded evidence that injection sites were selected haphazardly. Furthermore, after the student observations where concluded, discussions with staff nurses indicated little appreciation of site selection, which also was not recorded formally after each subcutaneous injection. Yet, site selection is paramount and should take into consideration the variable absorption among sites. The abdomen has the fastest rate of absorption, followed by the arms, thighs, and buttocks. Exercise increases the rate of absorption at injection sites, probably by increasing blood flow to the skin and perhaps also by local actions. Areas of lipohypertrophy usually have slower absorption. The rate of absorption also differs between subcutaneous and intramuscular sites, with the latter being faster. Although intramuscular sites are not recommended for routine use, they can be used under circumstances such as diabetic ketoacidosis or dehydration, although this practice may be questionable when using analog insulin formulations (27).

As early as 1978, an article published in The Lancet (28) reported that routinely cleaning the skin with alcohol before a subcutaneous injection substantially reduces skin bacterial counts but does not necessarily prevent infection at injection sites. These early observations were reconfirmed by the World Health Organization (29), whose recommendations regarding skin preparation before injection read, “Wash skin that is visibly soiled or dirty. Swabbing of the clean skin before giving an injection is unnecessary.”

Despite these recommendations, wiping the skin site with alcohol before injection is a longstanding medical ritual still assumed to be correct in Greece. This study showed that on >90% of occasions, the skin was treated with an alcohol swab, although this practice is not substantiated with sufficient evidence. It may be that Greek nurses apply this practice to subcutaneous injection sites because they are influenced by techniques recommended for intramuscular or intravenous injections.

Studies have shown that applying alcohol does not sterilize the skin but rather only cleans the top layer and that skin is just as clean when washed with soap and water. In most cases, the areas of the body used for injections are covered by clothing most of the time, so they generally are kept clean. Moreover, insulin needles are not good carriers of bacteria because they are small and slick, and some insulin preparations have bacteriostatic additives that inhibit the growth of bacteria in the vial (30).

Thus, despite the well-acknowledged fact that using alcohol swabs on already clean or covered skin before injecting insulin is unnecessary, this remains a well-embedded routine practice in Greek hospitals. If nurses continue to use alcohol swabs, however, they should be aware that the alcohol must be fully dry on the skin before the injection. Furthermore, the focus should not be on skin preparation, but rather avoiding infections, which are more likely to be caused by contaminated syringes, needles, or solutions.

The recommended needle angle for subcutaneous injections is 90°, bearing in mind that this is dependent on the amount of subcutaneous tissue and the size of the needle; a 45° angle may be used for very thin patients or young children. For either angle, injecting into a skinfold created using the index finger and thumb only is recommended in both cases (31,32). In the sample studied here, however, most injections were given at a 90° angle, with the remainder at a 45°, but skinfolds were not used with either angle. Insulin should be administered subcutaneously to ensure slow absorption. To achieve this, Greek nurses typically are taught to administer injections with the needle at a 45° angle. However, because there is no reliable method to determine whether one has sufficient subcutaneous fat, and given that needles in Greek hospitals are usually ≥8 mm in length, it should be recommended as a rule of thumb that an adequate skinfold be created and that injections be administered at 90°.

The use of gloves is routine for all injection administrations in Greece. As this study has shown, in the majority of observed insulin administrations, staff nurses used standard latex gloves. Although gloves must be worn for all invasive procedures, when used incorrectly, they protect neither the patient nor the nurse (33). Thus, it should be noted that the observation of glove use was concerned with the correct use of gloves throughout the injection procedure, rather than simply whether gloves were used at all. In this light, it can be argued that this practice was not to patients’ advantage in that gloves were not changed between patients.

As shown in this study, nurses practiced poor post-injection procedures, giving time constraints as a reason. However, it is highly recommended that a syringe stay in situ for at least 10 seconds before needle withdrawal and that inspection of the site should follow its removal to check for bleeding, torn skin, bruising, soreness, welts, redness, pain, and early signs of lipodystrophy or other local or generalized complications (34).

The observing students reported that staff nurses commented not only on serious staff shortages, but also on a lack of time to teach the students appropriate technique. This raises concerns about whether other nursing interventions are carried out correctly, although this is beyond the scope of this article. The results of this study suggest that there is an unawareness on the part of staff nurses about updated information and guidelines regarding insulin administration. Thus, it could be argued that providing continuing education for the nursing staff with regard to insulin procedures would not only improve the insulin administration technique of current staff, but also benefit new and future staff generations.

This study raises concerns about the insulin administration practices of some nursing staff in Northern Greece. Also, the apparent lack of local protocols and concrete teaching may negatively influence the skill status of student nurses. Optimal insulin injection technique is vital for glycemic control, and staff nurses are responsible for educating both student nurses and patients about the safe and correct technique for this task. Still, international evidence shows that patients’ self-injection techniques are often flawed (35). For example, a study in Pakistan showed poor technique and lack of knowledge regarding efficacious insulin administration among nurses from three different hospitals (36). Similarly, in India, poor practices regarding insulin administration led to the recently published First Insulin Technique (FIT) national guidelines (37).

Conclusion

The goal of any effective insulin therapy is to achieve optimal blood glucose levels. To achieve this important goal, nurses need to know and routinely practice optimal injection technique, from safe medication preparation to appropriate post-injection care.

As this study shows, nurses in this Greek hospital tend to administer subcutaneous injections in ways not reflected in current research findings, practice guidelines, or evidence-based care recommendations. Instead, they seem to be comfortable with techniques reminiscent of those used for intramuscular or other injections, which are heavily focusing on practices such as skin swabbing and less focused on post-injection care. Although individualized patient assessment is practiced (i.e., choosing to use a 45° or 90° needle angle depending on a patient’s body structure), this is not accompanied by the recommended creation of a skinfold in which to inject.

There appears to be an education gap in the area of diabetes care in this hospital in Northern Greece; in many cases, only half of the international injection technique recommendations were either understood or practiced. Overall, it is evident that the nurses in this sample require a more thorough understanding of updated clinical guidelines and protocols of care with regard to routine insulin administration. Thus, at least some nurses in Greece, and possibly beyond, should be reeducated about insulin administration and kept up to date on recent developments in technological and pharmacological advancements in the field and their translation for routine clinical practice.

Duality of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References

1. Gelder C. Best practice injection technique for children and young people with diabetes. Nurs Child Young People 2014;26:32–36 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Alabraba V, Floyd E, Morgan C, Kelly C, Wallymahmed M. “My diabetes, my insulin”: self-administration of insulin in hospital. J Diabetes Nurs 2014;18:296–299 [Google Scholar]

3. Lamont T, Cousins D, Hillson R, Bischler A, Terblanche M. Safer administration of insulin: summary of a safety report from the National Patient Safety Agency. BMJ 2010;341:c5269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Sharpe L. Improving safety of insulin administration: a pilot audit of hospital staff knowledge. J Diabetes Nurs 2012;16:8–16 [Google Scholar]

5. Ogston-Tuck S. Subcutaneous injection technique: an evidence-based approach. Nurs Stand 2014;29:53–58 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Patton S, Eder S, Schwab J, Sisson C. Survey of insulin site rotation in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr Health Care 2010;24:365–371 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Dolinar R. The importance of good insulin injection practices in diabetes management. US Endocrinol 2009;5:49–52 [Google Scholar]

8. Vardar B, Kizilci S. Incidence of lipohypertrophy in diabetic patients and a study of influencing factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007;77:231–236 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Davis E, Christensen C, Nystrom K, Foral P, Destache C. Patient satisfaction and costs associated with insulin administered by pen device or syringe during hospitalization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;15;65:1347–1357 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. American Diabetes Association Insulin administration. Diabetes Care 2003;26(Suppl. 1): S121–S124 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Shogbon A, Ngo D, Jacob B, Kimble L, Ryan G. Nurses’ perceptions and satisfaction with the use of insulin pen devices compared with insulin vial and syringes in an inpatient setting. Diabetes Technol Ther 2014;16:742–746 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Saltiel-Berzin R, Cypress M, Gibney M. Translating the research in insulin injection technique: Implication for practice. Diabetes Educ 2012;38:635–643 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Wood L, Wilbourne J, Kyne-Grzebalski D. Administration of insulin by injection. Practical Diabetes Int 2002;19 (Suppl. 2-1):S1–S4 [Google Scholar]

15. Trimble L, Meneilly G. Optimizing insulin absorption and insulin injection technique in older adults. Diabetes Care 2014;37:e127–e128 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. De Coninck C, Frid A, Gaspar R. Results and analysis of the 2008–2009 insulin injection technique questionnaire survey. J Diabetes 2010;2:168–179 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Zhou L, Fan Y, Lu X. Feasibility study of vertical subcutaneous injection of insulin with an insulin pen injector in diabetic patients with normal body mass index. J Int Med Res 2010;38:669–673 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Yakushiji F, Fujita H, Terayama Y. The best insulin injection pen device for caregivers: results of injection trials using five insulin injection devices. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12:143–148 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Partanen T, Rissanen A. Insulin injection practices. Pract Diabetes Int 2000;17:252–254 [Google Scholar]

20. Frid A, Hirsch L, Gaspar R. New injection recommendations for patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2010;36 (Suppl. 2):S3–S18 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Dougherty L, Lister S. The Royal Marsden Hospital Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures. 8th ed. Oxford, England, Blackwell Publishing, 2011 [Google Scholar]

22. Becker H, Blanche G. The analysis of qualitative field data. In Human Organization Research. Adams RA, Preiss JJ, Eds. Homewood Ill., Dorsey Press, 1960, p. 267–289 [Google Scholar]

23. Glaser B. The constant comparative method of qualitative research. Soc Probl 1965;12:431–445 [Google Scholar]

25. American Diabetes Association : Insulin administration (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 2002(Suppl. 1);25:S112–S115 [Google Scholar]

26. Shank M. Trouble with bubbles. Am J Nurs 1999;99:14–16 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Heinemann L. Insulin absorption from lipodystrophic areas: a (neglected) source of trouble for insulin therapy? Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:750–753 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Koivisto V, Felig P. Is skin preparation necessary before insulin injection? Lancet 1978;311:1072–1073 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Hansen B, Kirketerp G, Ehlers G, Nordentoft E, Hansen G. Evidence-based clinical guidelines for injection of insulin for adults with diabetes mellitus. Copenhagen, Denmark, Danish Nurses Organization, 2007 [Google Scholar]

31. Hofman P, Derraik J, Pinto T. Defining the ideal injection techniques when using 5-mm needles in children and adults. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1940–1944 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Nicol M, Bavin C, Bedford-Turner S, Cronin P, Rawlings-Anderson K. Essential Nursing Skills. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland, Mosby, 2004 [Google Scholar]

33. Pratt R, Pellowe C, Wilson J, et al.. epic2: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007;65(Suppl. I):S1–S4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Strauss K, De Gols H, Hannet I, Partanen T, Frid A. A pan-European epidemiologic study of injectable therapy injection technique in patients with diabetes. Pract Diabetes Int 2002;19:71–76 [Google Scholar]

36. Mushtaq M. Study of insulin injection technique amongst the nursing staff. Pak J Med Sci 2006;22:310–312 [Google Scholar]

37. Bajwa S, Kalra S, Baruah M, Bajwa S. An acute need for awareness of insulin injection guidelines in operative and intensive care units. Anesth Essays Res 2013;7:1–3 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Diabetes Spectrum : A Publication of the American Diabetes Association are provided here courtesy of American Diabetes Association