Sécurisation du circuit du médicament expérimental dans les services investigateurs en cas de dispensation non nominative par la méthode AMDEC.

The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy Pub Date : 2025-12-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4212/cjhp.3812
Mélanie Hinterlang, Mona Assefi, Pauline Glasman, Johanne Silvain, Delphine Brugier, Marie Antignac, Fanny Charbonnier-Beaupel, Carole Metz
{"title":"Sécurisation du circuit du médicament expérimental dans les services investigateurs en cas de dispensation non nominative par la méthode AMDEC.","authors":"Mélanie Hinterlang, Mona Assefi, Pauline Glasman, Johanne Silvain, Delphine Brugier, Marie Antignac, Fanny Charbonnier-Beaupel, Carole Metz","doi":"10.4212/cjhp.3812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical studies in critical care sometimes require very short time frames for study inclusion and drug administration, which may occur at any time. To optimize patient management, experimental drugs can be made directly available within the study unit.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine key areas of focus for controlling the non-patient-specific drug dispensing process for experimental drugs used in clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a preliminary survey, 3 pilot units were selected: the surgical intensive care unit, the post-intervention surveillance unit (PISU), and the cardiology unit. The failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) risk assessment method was applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 281 risks were identified. The majority were \"acceptable\" - 123 (44%), 110 (39%), and 147 (52%) - or \"tolerable\" - 139 (49%), 148 (53%), and 130 (46%) - in surgical intensive care, the PISU, and cardiology, respectively. The number of \"unacceptable\" risks was 19 (7%), 23 (8%), and 4 (1%) in the 3 units, respectively. Communication was identified as the most critical process across all 3 units. Following risk prioritization, 17 corrective measures were proposed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study helped identify potential areas for intervention to control the non-patient-specific drug dispensing process. Once the proposed actions are implemented, a reduction in overall risk criticality is expected, with all remaining risks falling within acceptable or tolerable levels. In the long term, this project aims to improve the management of patients enrolled in critical care clinical trials and promote research within the units involved.</p>","PeriodicalId":94225,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy","volume":"78 4","pages":"e3812"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12671591/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.3812","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical studies in critical care sometimes require very short time frames for study inclusion and drug administration, which may occur at any time. To optimize patient management, experimental drugs can be made directly available within the study unit.

Objective: To determine key areas of focus for controlling the non-patient-specific drug dispensing process for experimental drugs used in clinical trials.

Methods: After a preliminary survey, 3 pilot units were selected: the surgical intensive care unit, the post-intervention surveillance unit (PISU), and the cardiology unit. The failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) risk assessment method was applied.

Results: A total of 281 risks were identified. The majority were "acceptable" - 123 (44%), 110 (39%), and 147 (52%) - or "tolerable" - 139 (49%), 148 (53%), and 130 (46%) - in surgical intensive care, the PISU, and cardiology, respectively. The number of "unacceptable" risks was 19 (7%), 23 (8%), and 4 (1%) in the 3 units, respectively. Communication was identified as the most critical process across all 3 units. Following risk prioritization, 17 corrective measures were proposed.

Conclusions: This study helped identify potential areas for intervention to control the non-patient-specific drug dispensing process. Once the proposed actions are implemented, a reduction in overall risk criticality is expected, with all remaining risks falling within acceptable or tolerable levels. In the long term, this project aims to improve the management of patients enrolled in critical care clinical trials and promote research within the units involved.

在使用AMDEC方法进行非命名配药的情况下,确保实验药物在研究服务中的流通。
背景:重症监护的临床研究有时需要很短的时间框架来纳入研究和给药,这可能随时发生。为了优化患者管理,实验药物可以在研究单位内直接获得。目的:确定用于临床试验的实验性药物非患者特异性调剂过程控制的重点领域。方法:经初步调查,选择3个试点单位:外科重症监护病房、干预后监护病房(PISU)和心内科病房。采用失效模式、影响和临界性分析(FMECA)风险评估方法。结果:共发现281个风险。大多数在外科重症监护、PISU和心脏病学分别为“可接受”的123例(44%)、110例(39%)和147例(52%),或“可容忍”的139例(49%)、148例(53%)和130例(46%)。在3个单元中,“不可接受”风险的数量分别为19(7%)、23(8%)和4(1%)。沟通被认为是所有三个单元中最关键的过程。根据风险排序,提出了17项纠正措施。结论:本研究有助于确定潜在的干预领域,以控制非患者特异性药物调剂过程。一旦建议的行动被实施,预期总体风险临界性会降低,所有剩余的风险都落在可接受或可容忍的水平之内。从长远来看,该项目旨在改善重症临床试验患者的管理,并促进相关单位的研究。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书