Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation.

IF 1.1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of Pharmacy Technology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1177/87551225241278203
Han Na Cho, Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford
{"title":"Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation.","authors":"Han Na Cho, Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford","doi":"10.1177/87551225241278203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. <b>Methods:</b> This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536520/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225241278203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. Objective: To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. Results: A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (P < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (P < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.

在社区癌症中心实施和评估 APOTECAchemo:机器人与手工抗肿瘤准备的比较研究。
背景:抗肿瘤治疗的复杂性和需求不断增加,需要创新的解决方案来提高药物制备的准确性和安全性。目的: 评估先进的机器人化疗药物配制系统(APOTA)的使用情况:评估一家社区癌症中心 (CCC) 对先进的机器人化疗药物配制系统 (APOTECAchemo) 的使用情况,考察其准确性、效率和工作人员的看法。方法:这项单中心回顾性研究评估了社区癌症中心在一年时间内配制 7 种静脉注射抗肿瘤药物的情况。我们比较了手工方法和 APOTECAchemo 系统。准确性的主要衡量标准是药物绝对错误率,并对通过率和失败率进行比较。次要终点包括 APOTECAchemo 用于所有静脉注射抗肿瘤制剂的总体使用情况和平均制剂时间。最终用户满意度调查收集了药剂师和药学技术人员的反馈意见。结果CCC 共配制了 8210 剂药物,其中 52.1% 由 APOTECAchemo 配制,47.9% 由人工配制。其中,CCC 配制了 5526 剂 7 种常规复方抗肿瘤药物。APOTECAchemo 配制了 3851 剂(69.7%),手工配制了 1675 剂(30.3%)。机器人配制的平均绝对药物误差为 1.44%(95% CI,1.35-1.53),而人工配制为 1.17%(95% CI,1.03-1.32)(P < 0.001)。总失败率为 0.72%。共有 25 次配药失败(0.45%),其中 8 次(0.2%)失败归因于 APOTECAchemo,17 次(1%)归因于人工配药(P < 0.001)。与手工方法相比,APOTECAchemo 的平均配制时间更长。最终用户满意度调查显示,对 APOTECAchemo 的接受度较高。结论:我们的研究表明,APOTECAchemo 和手工配制方法在 CCC 常规给药的抗肿瘤药物配制中都得到了成功实施、广泛使用和高度准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信