医疗保健行业职业接触抗肿瘤药物的风险评估:第二部分--应用 FMECA 方法比较手工制剂和自动制剂。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Stefano Dugheri, Giovanni Cappelli, Donato Squillaci, Ilaria Rapi, Niccolò Fanfani, Fabrizio Dori, Michele Cecchi, Viola Sordi, Andrea Ghiori, Nicola Mucci
{"title":"医疗保健行业职业接触抗肿瘤药物的风险评估:第二部分--应用 FMECA 方法比较手工制剂和自动制剂。","authors":"Stefano Dugheri, Giovanni Cappelli, Donato Squillaci, Ilaria Rapi, Niccolò Fanfani, Fabrizio Dori, Michele Cecchi, Viola Sordi, Andrea Ghiori, Nicola Mucci","doi":"10.2478/aiht-2024-75-3803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in preparation units run the risk of occupational exposure to contaminated surfaces and associated mutagenic, teratogenic, and oncogenic effects of those drugs. To minimise this risk, automated compounding systems, mainly robots, have been replacing manual preparation of intravenous drugs for the last 20 years now, and their number is on the rise. To evaluate contamination risk and the quality of the working environment for healthcare workers preparing ADs, we applied the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method to compare the acceptable risk level (ARL), based on the risk priority number (RPN) calculated from five identified failure modes, with the measured risk level (MRL). The model has shown higher risk of exposure with powdered ADs and containers not protected by external plastic shrink film, but we found no clear difference in contamination risk between manual and automated preparation. This approach could be useful to assess and prevent the risk of occupational exposure for healthcare workers coming from residual cytotoxic contamination both for current handling procedures and the newly designed ones. At the same time, contamination monitoring data can be used to keep track of the quality of working conditions by comparing the observed risk profiles with the proposed ARL. Our study has shown that automated preparation may have an upper hand in terms of safety but still leaves room for improvement, at least in our four hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":55462,"journal":{"name":"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology","volume":"75 1","pages":"41-50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10978160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare sector: part II - the application of the FMECA method to compare manual vs automated preparation.\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Dugheri, Giovanni Cappelli, Donato Squillaci, Ilaria Rapi, Niccolò Fanfani, Fabrizio Dori, Michele Cecchi, Viola Sordi, Andrea Ghiori, Nicola Mucci\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/aiht-2024-75-3803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in preparation units run the risk of occupational exposure to contaminated surfaces and associated mutagenic, teratogenic, and oncogenic effects of those drugs. To minimise this risk, automated compounding systems, mainly robots, have been replacing manual preparation of intravenous drugs for the last 20 years now, and their number is on the rise. To evaluate contamination risk and the quality of the working environment for healthcare workers preparing ADs, we applied the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method to compare the acceptable risk level (ARL), based on the risk priority number (RPN) calculated from five identified failure modes, with the measured risk level (MRL). The model has shown higher risk of exposure with powdered ADs and containers not protected by external plastic shrink film, but we found no clear difference in contamination risk between manual and automated preparation. This approach could be useful to assess and prevent the risk of occupational exposure for healthcare workers coming from residual cytotoxic contamination both for current handling procedures and the newly designed ones. At the same time, contamination monitoring data can be used to keep track of the quality of working conditions by comparing the observed risk profiles with the proposed ARL. Our study has shown that automated preparation may have an upper hand in terms of safety but still leaves room for improvement, at least in our four hospitals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"41-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10978160/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2024-75-3803\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2024-75-3803","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在配制单位处理抗肿瘤药物(ADs)的医护人员面临着职业暴露于受污染表面的风险,以及这些药物的相关诱变、致畸和致癌效应。为了最大限度地降低这种风险,过去 20 年来,自动配制系统(主要是机器人)已经取代了人工配制静脉注射药物,而且其数量还在不断增加。为了评估医护人员配制 ADs 的污染风险和工作环境质量,我们采用了故障模式影响和临界分析 (FMECA) 方法,将根据五种已识别故障模式计算出的风险优先级 (RPN) 得出的可接受风险水平 (ARL) 与测量风险水平 (MRL) 进行比较。该模型显示,粉末状反式脂肪酸和没有外部塑料收缩膜保护的容器的暴露风险较高,但我们发现手工制备和自动制备的污染风险没有明显差异。这种方法可用于评估和预防医护人员因目前的处理程序和新设计的处理程序中残留的细胞毒性污染而面临的职业暴露风险。与此同时,污染监测数据还可用于跟踪工作条件的质量,方法是将观察到的风险特征与建议的 ARL 进行比较。我们的研究表明,自动化制备在安全性方面可能更胜一筹,但仍有改进的余地,至少在我们四家医院是这样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare sector: part II - the application of the FMECA method to compare manual vs automated preparation.

Healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in preparation units run the risk of occupational exposure to contaminated surfaces and associated mutagenic, teratogenic, and oncogenic effects of those drugs. To minimise this risk, automated compounding systems, mainly robots, have been replacing manual preparation of intravenous drugs for the last 20 years now, and their number is on the rise. To evaluate contamination risk and the quality of the working environment for healthcare workers preparing ADs, we applied the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method to compare the acceptable risk level (ARL), based on the risk priority number (RPN) calculated from five identified failure modes, with the measured risk level (MRL). The model has shown higher risk of exposure with powdered ADs and containers not protected by external plastic shrink film, but we found no clear difference in contamination risk between manual and automated preparation. This approach could be useful to assess and prevent the risk of occupational exposure for healthcare workers coming from residual cytotoxic contamination both for current handling procedures and the newly designed ones. At the same time, contamination monitoring data can be used to keep track of the quality of working conditions by comparing the observed risk profiles with the proposed ARL. Our study has shown that automated preparation may have an upper hand in terms of safety but still leaves room for improvement, at least in our four hospitals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology
Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology (abbr. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol) is a peer-reviewed biomedical scientific quarterly that publishes contributions relevant to all aspects of environmental and occupational health and toxicology.
×
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