Utilization of a technology-assisted workflow to prepare controlled substance oral syringes.

Autor: Nester T; Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS, USA., Proffitt K; Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS, USA., Anderson J; Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS, USA., Hays A; Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA., Eidem L; Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, KS, USA., Greszler C; Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists [Am J Health Syst Pharm] 2023 Aug 04; Vol. 80 (16), pp. 1063-1070.
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxad112
Abstrakt: Purpose: Utilization of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) systems has gained popularity in the sterile compounding setting. This study was designed to evaluate whether safety and efficiency could be seen when preparing oral controlled substance doses gravimetrically vs volumetrically.
Methods: This 2-phase observational study combined manual data collection with automated logs generated by a single TAWF. During phase I, oral controlled substance solutions were prepared volumetrically. In phase II, the same subset of medications was to be prepared gravimetrically via the same TAWF. Findings from phases I and II were compared against each another to determine safety, efficiency, and documentation differences between the volumetric and gravimetric workflows.
Results: Thirteen different medications were evaluated during phase I (1,495 preparations) and phase II (1,781 preparations) of this study. Mean compounding time (min:sec) increased in phase II when compared to phase I (1:49 vs 1:28; P < 0.01), with the deviation detection rate also increasing (7.9% vs 4.7%; P < 0.01). Despite a target in phase II of utilizing gravimetric analysis for more than 80% of preparations, only 45.5% (811 preparations) were prepared with this workflow, as adoption challenges and dose size limitations prevented compliance. Doses that were prepared gravimetrically had a mean accuracy rate of 100.6% (the mean achieved dose was 0.6% higher than the mean prescribed dose) and a rejection rate of 0.99% (compared to the phase I rejection rate of 1.07%; P = 0.67).
Conclusion: The gravimetric workflow provided accuracy and additional safety checks when compared to the volumetric alternative, all while providing users with greater access to data. Health systems should consider staffing, product sourcing, patient populations, and medication safety when determining the balance between volumetric and gravimetric workflows.
(© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje