↓ Skip to main content

Errors in the Administration Technique of Insulin Pen Devices: A Result of Insufficient Education

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Errors in the Administration Technique of Insulin Pen Devices: A Result of Insufficient Education
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13300-017-0242-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa H. Truong, Trang T. Nguyen, Becky L. Armor, Jamie R. Farley

Abstract

Insulin is a high-alert medication in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Insulin can cause significant harm when administered in error. Despite advancements in insulin pen technology, errors in the administration technique remain an issue. Although various factors can contribute to administration errors, lack of education on how to operate these devices is one of the most common reasons they occur. As such, the mechanical technique used by the patient needs to be continually assessed in order to reinforce education where needed. We describe three unique patient cases that depict incorrect administration techniques when using pen devices and the consequences that could have resulted from these errors. These cases involve the use of a syringe instead of a pen needle, injecting without removing the inner cap, and dialing the pen back down instead of pushing the plunger. Although pen devices are relatively simple to use, this article reinforces the need for continual assessment of and education about insulin administration. The teach-back method is an approach that can be used to assess a patient's technique and re-educate them at every available opportunity to reduce the risk of administration errors, which can result in complications and hospitalizations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 28 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,625,126
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#116
of 1,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,501
of 324,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.