|
Post by stevejackowski on Apr 9, 2016 14:33:20 GMT
What does everything think about the new IM injections replacing the EPIpen? I think there are definitely pros and cons. Drawing up meds can be fun, especially for basics who don't get perform that skill - but when a pt is in anaphylaxis, that extra time needed to get the right dose in the pt may be an issue. Additionally, by needing to draw the med there may be instances of med errors. It is my understanding that this transition is primarily cost related(as is everything else in healthcare) but I wonder what the cost difference would be in pre-filled syringes? Yes, it would be similar to an auto-injector in that the meds are already in the barrel but I think there would be greater control of the meds actually getting into the muscle as well as reducing med errors. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by mreinemann on Apr 19, 2016 23:54:55 GMT
When I was told about the new policy, I had the same thoughts. As a Basic, administering IM meds is fascinating, but I do worry about the extent of the skills or additional training required. It is a cost-driven change, as far as I know, but I haven't heard of pre-filled syringes. In any case, I doubt Epi-pens are going anywhere fast, since patients will continue to have them for personal prescription use.
|
|
|
Post by mmurphy on Apr 23, 2016 1:10:07 GMT
As a basic I'm definitely excited about the idea of drawing up meds, but I agree that it certainly creates room for error. I do like that the IM injections are far more cost effective, particularly for agencies that rarely have to administer epi through an auto-injector and end up throwing away $300 each year.
|
|