Deahna Visscher’s Patient Story

May 15, 2018 | Posted in Patient Safety | By

Deanha Visscher (1)New mother Deahna Visscher was feeling hopeful. Although her son Grant had been born with a heart defect, he was doing very well after surgery. Just 11-days old, doctors felt he could soon leave the hospital. But that didn’t happen. A nurse incorrectly inserted a feeding tube piercing the little infant’s trachea and filling his lungs with fluid. “The nurse asked me to go out into the hall and ask for help,” recalls Deahna. “I told them my son was turning blue and I watched as 20 staff members tried to resuscitate him.” Grant was pronounced dead at 9:10 p.m.

Sadly, Deahna isn’t alone. Although feeding and drainage tubes are routinely used in hospitals, they carry the risk of serious or even potentially lethal complications.1 In fact, studies estimate that every year, nearly 500,000 nasogastric (NG) and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and suction tubes are misplaced, which result in severe complications or death.2 It was these risks that led one nurse to begin looking for answers. “We had a couple of instances of misplaced feeding tubes [at Children’s Mercy Kansas City]. I couldn’t get over the fact that the nurses followed the right procedure, but it didn’t work, so two nurses and families’ lives were changed forever,” explains Beth Lyman, the Sr. Program Coordinator of the Nutrition Support Team at Children’s Mercy Kansas City. With more than forty years of experience, Lyman discovered that despite the risks associated with this common procedure, no universal standard of practice exists for bedside verification because each method has limitations.

Deanha Visscher (3)

As a board member of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), Lyman developed the New Opportunities for Verification of Enteral tube Location (NOVEL) project an inter-organization, interdisciplinary and international effort to promote best practice for NG tube placement verification. X-rays are currently the gold standard for NGT placement confirmation because they can visualize the course of the NGT.3 Despite being the gold standard, it is not foolproof. Between 2005 and 2010, 45% of all cases of harm caused by a misplaced NGT reported by the United Kingdom’s National Patient Safety Agency were due to misinterpreted X-rays.4 “What was surprising was that there still isn’t consistency in practice for placement and verification of nasogastric tubes. People are still using non-evidence-based practices. Nurses are resistant, but I think things are changing,” says Lyman. The non-evidence-based practices Lyman refers to is the continued use of methods including aspiration or auscultation to verify NG tube placement. It has been well documented for almost 20 years that a common bedside method (auscultation) is often inaccurate; however, it is still widely practiced.5

“Research from the 1990’s shows that auscultation is less reliable than tossing a coin. In test conditions, over 80% of clinicians failed to detect tubes in the lungs. In England, air auscultation is something we banned over 13 years ago, but when preparing for [the World Patient Safety, Science & Technology Summit], I was shocked to realize just how commonplace this method has remained in some other countries. I found materials teaching parents and physicians, apparently completely unaware of the research and the risks,” explains Frances Healey, Ph.D., RN, Deputy Director of Patient Safety, National Health Service Improvement. Lyman adds, “And it’s not just children. A recent study in Pennsylvania found the largest number of misplacements were in the elderly followed by the next group, very tiny, babies.” Failure to detect misplaced NGTs are attributed to: use of non-evidence-based methods to confirm initial placement (auscultation or aspiration), failure to recognize when an NGT has changed position, failure to properly read an abdominal radiograph, failure to accurately interpret an electromagnetic device screen.6 To confirm NG tube placement, NOVEL recommends a multimodal verification system which includes:

Deanha Visscher (2)

• Use of pH7 — to check the acidity of the stomach to verify placement
• NEMU — nurses should measure NEMU (nose-ear-mid-umbilicus) every time they place an NG tube
• Use Critical Thinking Skills — if patients deteriorate during placement, then remove the tube
• X-ray Verification — x-ray verification remains the gold standard but raises concern with repeated exposure, particularly in neonates.

When X-rays are done, it must be read by someone competent. “Tube placement and misplacement is not difficult, but it’s tricky because the signs of misplacement are tricky,” says Lyman. Lyman acknowledges that pH isn’t perfect. “We need technology companies to begin developing technology to help with this. There is a nurse who developed a tube with an LED light at the end which can show where the tube is placed but we need technology companies to begin investing in finding solutions,” Lyman urges. But change is possible. Since Grant’s tragic death, Children’s Hospital Colorado has crafted procedures to ensure that such errors are not repeated. Their procedures and those of a multi-disciplinary team of experts created the foundation for the new “Actionable Patient Safety Solutions” (APSS) developed by the PSMF and follow NOVEL’s recommendations.

Deanha Visscher (4)

Clinical Nurse Specialist Christine Peyton, RN who spearheaded the changes at Children’s Hospital Colorado discussed the resistance to change and how the hospital found success. “When we took auscultation out of the procedures, there was a lot of resistance. We had to go to our nurse managers and our home health agencies to educate and implement the new process. Since there was resistance, we had to take a step back. We told Grant’s story, and that was powerful. It was really hard for people to hear but they realized that [the change to the policy] was the right thing to do and that the literature supports it,” explains Peyton. “A couple of years after Grant died, I thought how do I know the hospital made all of the changes that they promised,” recalls Deahna. “When I talked to them, I learned that they had implemented the changes. Chris was able to tell me that day that they were able to save four babies lives because of the policy changes they made.” “It gives me strength, and it validates to me that Grant didn’t die in vain,” says Deanha.

Our Solution: RightBio Metrics pH Indicators

1 Verifying NG feeding tube placement in pediatric patients. (2016). American Nurse Today. Retrieved from patients/.
2 AHC Media. (2015). Misplaced NG tubes a major patient safety risk.
3 Turgay, A., & Khorshid, L. (2010). Effectiveness of the auscultatory and pH methods in predicting feeding tube placement. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 19(11-12), 1553-1559.
4 National Patient Safety Agency. Patient Safety Alert NPSA/2011/PSA002: Reducing the harm caused by misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes in adults, children and infants. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2011.
5 Clinical Practice Guideline: Gastric Tube Placement Verification. (2010). Emergency Nurses Association. Retrieved from
6 October, T., & Hardart, G. (2009). Successful placement of postpyloric enteral tubes using electromagnetic guidance in critically ill children*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 10(2), 196-200.
7 Bankhead R, Boullata J, Brantley S, et al. A.S.P.E.N enteral nutrition practice recommendations. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33(2):122-167.

How Close to Zero Displacement Do Neutral Needle-free Connectors Actually Get?

December 22, 2016 | Posted in Patient Safety | By

Neutral needle-free connector logo

Until a few years ago, the prevailing view was that a neutral needle-free connector was impossible to achieve. Consequently, many medical device manufacturers promoted positive displacement as the best approach for preventing blood reflux into an IV catheter. However, in the last few years, neutral connectors have become a reality, and now a neutral needle-free connector with no blood reflux is the preferred technology1.

But how close to “true neutral” — or zero displacement — do commercial needle-free connectors actually get? NP Medical has proven that the neutral connector is possible, reliable, easy to use and safe. But we have also demonstrated that not all neutral connectors have the same performance. In other words, “neutral” is relative. I want to share the results of an in vitro study that NP Medical conducted in 2013. The study involved four commercially available needle-free connectors that are advertised as neutral displacement, including NP Medical’s
nPulse™ Neutral Connector.

The other three were the InVision-Plus® Neutral®from RyMed Technologies, the MicroCLAVE® Clear Connector from ICU Medical, and the One-Link Needle-free IV Connector from Baxter.

Graph depicting neutral displacement with needle-free connector
We procured thirty (30) randomly selected samples of each brand from commercial distribution. The study examined displacement upon disconnection of a Luer device, specifically a Luer lock syringe. The study protocol eliminated handling “noise,” such as squeezing the syringe barrel, to ensure that the displacement was truly a function of connector performance. The connection and disconnection procedure was repeated 30 times, providing a total of 30 data points for each brand.
The table below shows the results. As you can see, the average displacement for each brand is notably different, with all brands exhibiting negative displacement except for the nPulse™ Neutral Connector.

Achieving neutral displacement is, in reality, an engineering feat. Actually, it requires a combination of advanced engineering design, and high-precision manufacturing processes— the latter is especially important for consistent performance in high volume production.

1Jarvis W., MD. Choosing the Best Design for Intravenous Needleless Connectors to Prevent Bloodstream Infections. Infection Control Today, July 2010,
2 For an in vivo correlation, -2 microliters of blood reflux within a typical 3 Fr silicone PICC would be approximately 1 cm of length up the lumen of the catheter.


Blog Reference:

How One Doctor’s Checklist Can Help Us Change Healthcare from the Inside Out

September 28, 2016 | Posted in Patient Safety | By

Peter J. Pronovost is an intensive care specialist physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. He started studying hospital-acquired infections in 2001, concluding that a simple 5 item check-list protocol would greatly reduce infections when inserting a central venous catheter.

Doctors should:checklist-blog-post-image
1. Wash their hands with soap.
2. Clean the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic.
3. Put sterile drapes over the entire patient.
4. Wear a sterile mask, hat, gown and gloves.
5. Put a sterile dressing over the catheter site.

In the Keystone Initiative, a 2003 study by a collection of Michigan hospitals and health organizations, the median rate of infections at a typical ICU dropped from 2.7 per 1,000 patients to zero after three months.

In the first three months of the project, the infection rate in Michigan’s ICUs decreased by sixty-six per cent. In the Initiative’s first eighteen months, they estimated that 1500 lives and $100 million were saved. These results were sustained for almost four years.

Several reasons may explain why a simple checklist protocol is not more widely adapted:

  • Many physicians do not like being monitored by nurses or otherwise being forced to follow a checklist
  • A wish to avoid standardized tasks and bureaucracy
  • A focus by researchers on “more exciting” issues such as disease biology and new treatment therapies.

According to Pronovost,

The fundamental problem with the quality of American medicine is that we’ve failed to view delivery of health care as a science. The tasks of medical science fall into three buckets. One is understanding disease biology. One is finding effective therapies. And one is ensuring those therapies are delivered effectively. That third bucket has been almost totally ignored by research funders, government, and academia. It’s viewed as the art of medicine. That’s a mistake, a huge mistake. And from a taxpayer’s perspective it’s outrageous.