search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
CLINICAL AUDIT: EQUINE INTRAVENOUS FLUID THERAPY


| 33


FIGURE 6 Bar graph for the horses recorded in the study. Bar height represents the number of horses in each category, bar colour represents the day or night period, the x - axis range values are grouped into 2 L intervals and represent the volume of IVFT each horse received in relation to their prescribed volume, a positive value would represent a volume higher than prescribed. a) Bar graph shows the number of horses and the difference in prescribed vs. actual volume horses received in 2020. b) Bar graph shows the number of horses and the difference in prescribed vs. actual volume of horses received in 2021.


prompted caregivers to adjust flow rates in compensation for time away from fluid therapy. The increased awareness of the issues contributed to a more


proactive approach to ensuring the fluid flow rate was maintained. Difficulty persisted in cases when fluids were spiked with lidocaine or electrolytes. In these cases, catching up the fluid rate was not pos- sible due to the risk of toxicity. This was the case for one horse in the night period of 2021 who received 14.75 L less than prescribed. In this scenario, if a significant deficit in fluid administration still occurs, con- sideration could be given to temporarily increase isotonic fluids or to administer lidocaine and isotonic fluids through separate giving sets.


It was thought that fewer staff monitoring fluids overnight


would improve the volume received, due to fewer inconsistencies. However, when comparing the day- time period and night- time pe- riod, the changeover of staff made negligible difference to the aver- age volume received. As a side effect of the changes implemented, it was retrospec-


tively observed during the period of re- audit that a larger range of fluid plans was prescribed, as the rate was easier to monitor using the fluid graph (e.g. 2.5× maintenance). It was noted at the end of the audit, that the fluid graph was not updated as efficiently during the morning and evening handover


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76