Nurse Gives Lethal Dose of Vecuronium Instead of Versed

On December 26, 2017, a tragic and preventable death occurred when a patient at Vanderbilt Hospital was sent for a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan and received a lethal dose of Vecuronium instead of Versed. Nurses General Nursing Article

PET scans are typically performed in the outpatient setting and not inpatient. They are not emergent. This was a full body inpatient PET scan which might be said is inappropriate resource utilization.

If it had been done in the outpatient setting, it's unlikely that Versed would have been administered. Essentially a patient died because a dangerous medication that was never ordered was given.

The patient, a 75 yr old female, was admitted to neuro ICU on 12/24/2017 with intraparenchymal hematoma of the brain, headache, homonymous hemianopia (loss of visual field bilaterally), atrial fib, and hypertension. She was alert and oriented and doing well, about to be transferred to SDU. While the patient was waiting for her scan, she asked for medication to prevent claustrophobia. The provider ordered 2 mg of Versed, and the pt's nurse was asked to come down and administer it.

At the time, the pt's nurse was covering a lunch break for another nurse and asked the "help all nurse" to go down and give the Versed so the procedure would not be delayed or rescheduled. The "help all nurse" performs different tasks, but there was no job description for a "help all nurse". It is not clear if the "help all nurse" was an ICU nurse, or a nurse floated from elsewhere, such as Med Surg. Clearly, the "help all nurse" was not trained in conscious sedation, and was seemingly unfamiliar with both Versed and Vecuronium.

The "help all nurse" searched for Versed under the pt's profile in the Pyxis but it did not come up. So she chose override and typed in "VE". The first drug to come up was Vecuronium, which she selected. She then proceeded to reconstitute the drug, not recognizing that Versed does not need to be reconstituted, and not taking heed of the red cap on the vial or the words "paralytic agent". Next, she administered 2 mg of the Vecuronium IVP and left the patient.

Vecuronium and Versed

Vecuronium is a neuromuscular blocking agent that causes paralysis and death if patients are not monitored.

Basically, the patient will be paralyzed, conscious and unable to draw a breath. All sensation will be experienced- panic, pain, fear, but the patient is unable to cry out. It's truly the stuff of nightmares.

Versed is often given for procedural sedation but is not a paralytic. Versed can affect respirations, and patients must be closely monitored for hypoventilation.

Timeline

Here is a timeline of events, where the time was documented.

  • The doctor ordered Versed 2 mg IV at 1447 on 12/26/2017.
  • The Pharmacy reviewed the order at 1449.
  • Vecuronium 10 mg was withdrawn from the Pyxis at 1459 using override.
  • Vecuronium administered but not documented. Patient left alone, unmonitored.
  • Rapid response was called at 1529.
  • Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was restored after 2 rounds of ACLS
  • Patient was intubated and returned to neuro ICU
  • Patient displayed myoclonic jerks with posturing in ICU
  • Anoxic brain injury is documented
  • Extubation was performed at 1257 on 12/27/2017
  • Death was pronounced at 1307 due to pulselessness

The Findings

The Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) did not investigate the event until October, 2018 as the death was not reported to them at the time.

According to CMS standards, patients have a right to receive care in a safe setting and hospitals have a responsibility to mitigate potentially fatal mistakes.

CMS ruled that Vanderbilt failed to provide safe care and protect patients. Vanderbilt was placed in serious and immediate jeopardy by CMS.

Since that ruling, the CMS has accepted Vanderbilt's plan of action.

What Went Wrong

  • No documentation of the Vecuronium being administered
  • Patient was not monitored
  • Autopsy was not conducted as should have been for an unusual death such as one caused by a medication error
  • Death certificate said the cause of death was a cerebral bleed, not a medication error.

Contributing Factors

  • Pyxis override functionality - a necessary function, but contributed to the error
  • Failure of the hospital to ensure that only nurses trained in conscious sedation can administer Versed
  • Failure of hospital policy to address the manner and frequency of monitoring
  • Concern about convenience over safety- pressure to not reschedule a test rather than taking the time to safely prepare the patient
  • Staffing- Covering another nurse's patients results in an unsafe workload

Blaming

The simplest thing is to blame the nurse for 100% of the error. Her failure to follow basic medication safety steps is not defensible.

But stopping there prevents us from learning how it happened and preventing future mistakes. We need to learn more about the science of mistakes. We all make them. Something in our brains allows us to see what we expect to see and not always what is there, as in running a red light. Or not registering red caps and cautionary labels on a high-alert medication.

The "help all nurse" was distracted in that she had an orientee with her, and immediately after giving the medication, went to the ED to perform a swallow screen test. She was performing a series of tasks.

The patient's nurse did not delegate appropriately as she did not confirm the "help all nurses " knowledge and skills. Tasks should be delegated to the right person, and this was not the right nurse to administer Versed. Maybe nurses are not all interchangeable as administrations sometimes like to think.

Vanderbilt did not clearly define role expectations, or patient monitoring in conscious sedation.

What do you think were the causes, and would have prevented this from occurring?

Related post When Nurses Make Fatal Mistakes

What strikes me most about this situation:

- On the one hand you have a role whose job appears to be to swoop in and fix problems and keep the ball rolling with minimal instructions or backstory, and presumably to be able to take requests from various departments from ICU to... whatever. You would think this role could only be effectively managed by a highly skilled nurse experienced in many areas of medicine.

- On the other hand, the person filling the role didnt know versed from vecuronium, which I would expect any ICU orientee to know after 8 weeks, much less someone with any real expertise. This individual had no business at all working with ICU patients independently, and certainly not being a 'fixer' for ICU (or stepdown) patients they know almost nothing about.

So, obviously, the nurse in question made serious mistakes. But if you want to look for systemic issues, consider some of the issues that put that severely underskiled nurse into that position in the first place.

I don't know if the problem was that the hospital filled a high-skill position with a low-skill candidate, or if the person hiring for the position is a bean counter who doesn't appreciate that RNs aren't simply interchangeable. Or maybe the position had such a broad range of duties that it was unreasonable to expect to find one RN skilled in all of the roles it involved - I dont know of any nurses who could seamlessly switch between ED, ICU, NICU, pediatric oncology, and psych, and for all I know the nurse in question had to service all of these areas.

The nurse surely failed. But she failed so badly that the system must have failed in even putting her there.

attachment.php?attachmentid=28012&stc=1

Must've missed this....honest mistake. Can we move on? It's dangerous to be a patient these days...

Specializes in Cardiac, ER.
If the order was reviewed by pharmacy, why was it not profiled? This would have eliminated the need for an override. That being said you still have to know what you're giving and that it matches an appropriate order. Pharmacists are human as well and I have seen things stocked incorrectly in pyxis bins, so you can't just pull something and assume it's correct.

The ball was dropped every step of the way on this.

According to the CMS report the medication was verified by the pharmacy 10 minutes before she pulled it. The Pyxis defaults to generic names. The nurse entered VE (versed) not Mid (Midazolam) and grabbed the first med on the list Vecuronium.

How did she not know to use generic names? How did she not know that Versed/Midazolam does not require reconstitution? How did she not know that Versed requires monitoring? So many questions.

I work in baby land where we double check almost all medications but I imagine paralytic should be a mandatory double check.

Specializes in Cardiac, ER.
This is what I don't understand about the timeline. 30 minutes since she got the vec when the code was called and they got her back with 2 rounds of acls? But she was so hypoxic she was declared brain dead within 24 hours?

As far as job descriptions go she probably had a general RN job description but specific to the helper role.

She only gave 2 mg of Vec, they have the rest of the med in the syringe, which is a very small dose.

Could have overrided and pulled verapamil and we'd never, ever heard of this...so close...if only 'r' came before 'c'....

She only gave 2 mg of Vec, they have the rest of the med in the syringe, which is a very small dose.

oh, is that all...should be fine...

She only gave 2 mg of Vec, they have the rest of the med in the syringe, which is a very small dose.

According to the report there were 2 syringes in the bag, neither marked as the medication. One had 8mLs and the other around 1.5mLs. Who's to say s/he didn't push the 2 mLs thinking it was the vec when in reality it was the flush, then "flushed" with the 7.5mLs of vec thinking it was the NS? Nowhere in the report does it say that they absolutely know how much was given. If I read the report right, it was never even charted in that patient's chart that she received the med period.

Specializes in Cardiac, ER.
oh, is that all...should be fine...

I was not insinuating "she would be fine",...just that such a small dose would help to explain the time line and quick ROSC. One of the physcians felt the dose shoud not be lethal and perhaps her bleed, related to a mass in her brain was really the cause of death. Many many questions

Which is why technology needs to be the last line of defense, not the first.

Technology is no defense at all, and it is delusional to put the two concepts in the same context. As long as there is a human "overide" component in any technological failsafe, there is no failsafe.

Accidents are less common owing to these built in "safety" features, but the devastating events that slip through are the ones that are caused by the invincibly and unrestrainably ignorant and/or catastrophically stupid.

Specializes in Cardiac, ER.
According to the report there were 2 syringes in the bag, neither marked as the medication. One had 8mLs and the other around 1.5mLs. Who's to say s/he didn't push the 2 mLs thinking it was the vec when in reality it was the flush, then "flushed" with the 7.5mLs of vec thinking it was the NS? Nowhere in the report does it say that they absolutely know how much was given. If I read the report right, it was never even charted in that patient's chart that she received the med period.

Im sure no one knows for sure,...but the two syringes were 10cc flushes,..the one with a capped needle on it was full of 8cc of clear liquid (2 cc missing) the other flush syringe had only 2cc remaining and no needle. Sounds like she used the needle to reconstitute, gave the 2mg ordered, then flushed with the other syringe saving the 'versed" to waste with her coworker. But you are correct, we dont absolutely know. Very sad situation.