{"title":"在医院药房配制单元中配制细胞毒性药物的封闭系统传输装置比较","authors":"Evonne Katherine Smith BPharm, GDClinPharm","doi":"10.1002/jppr.1954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The use of a closed system transfer device (CSTD) is recommended when compounding hazardous cytotoxic medicines for operator and environmental protection. The hospital pharmacy compounding unit has used the CSTD PhaSeal since 2014. Recent evidence suggests an alternative CSTD, Equashield, may be a suitable alternative.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To determine if Equashield provides any advantages financially, in compounding time, rubber bung contamination, cytotoxic medicine surface contamination, staff satisfaction, and work health and safety benefits when compared to PhaSeal.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>CSTD PhaSeal was compared to Equashield by performing a financial cost comparison, time in motion study to compare compounding time, evaluation of product contamination rates and cytotoxic surface contamination levels, work health and safety (WH&S) review and staff satisfaction survey. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Children's Health Queensland Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: EX/23/QCHQ/97690). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the study conformed with the <i>Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities</i> and met local requirements for a quality assurance activity and did not involve any assessment of staff. Informed consent was obtained from all staff via verbal explanation of the project and their voluntary participation. Staff consented via completion of the voluntary survey.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The cost to compound using Equashield instead of PhaSeal was increased by AUD $4684 over a 6-month period, with a compounding time saving benefit of approximately 1 min per product. Product contamination by rubber stopper core was 16 per 100,000 products using Equashield. Surface cytotoxic contamination levels remained undetectable before and after the comparison. Staff preferred Equashield and a WH&S product review determined Equashield required less torque and force during use and may reduce repetitive strain injury.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Equashield performed better in time to compound, rate of product contamination, staff satisfaction and WH&S assessment. The cost of Equashield was greater; however, Equashield demonstrated benefits over Phaseal in other areas of comparison, which could potentially offset the cost increase. The pharmacy demonstrated Equashield may be a suitable alternative to PhaSeal.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","volume":"55 2","pages":"138-145"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of closed-system transfer devices to compound cytotoxic medicines in a hospital pharmacy compounding unit\",\"authors\":\"Evonne Katherine Smith BPharm, GDClinPharm\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jppr.1954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The use of a closed system transfer device (CSTD) is recommended when compounding hazardous cytotoxic medicines for operator and environmental protection. The hospital pharmacy compounding unit has used the CSTD PhaSeal since 2014. Recent evidence suggests an alternative CSTD, Equashield, may be a suitable alternative.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To determine if Equashield provides any advantages financially, in compounding time, rubber bung contamination, cytotoxic medicine surface contamination, staff satisfaction, and work health and safety benefits when compared to PhaSeal.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>CSTD PhaSeal was compared to Equashield by performing a financial cost comparison, time in motion study to compare compounding time, evaluation of product contamination rates and cytotoxic surface contamination levels, work health and safety (WH&S) review and staff satisfaction survey. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Children's Health Queensland Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: EX/23/QCHQ/97690). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the study conformed with the <i>Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities</i> and met local requirements for a quality assurance activity and did not involve any assessment of staff. Informed consent was obtained from all staff via verbal explanation of the project and their voluntary participation. Staff consented via completion of the voluntary survey.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The cost to compound using Equashield instead of PhaSeal was increased by AUD $4684 over a 6-month period, with a compounding time saving benefit of approximately 1 min per product. Product contamination by rubber stopper core was 16 per 100,000 products using Equashield. Surface cytotoxic contamination levels remained undetectable before and after the comparison. Staff preferred Equashield and a WH&S product review determined Equashield required less torque and force during use and may reduce repetitive strain injury.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Equashield performed better in time to compound, rate of product contamination, staff satisfaction and WH&S assessment. The cost of Equashield was greater; however, Equashield demonstrated benefits over Phaseal in other areas of comparison, which could potentially offset the cost increase. The pharmacy demonstrated Equashield may be a suitable alternative to PhaSeal.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"138-145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1954\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of closed-system transfer devices to compound cytotoxic medicines in a hospital pharmacy compounding unit
Background
The use of a closed system transfer device (CSTD) is recommended when compounding hazardous cytotoxic medicines for operator and environmental protection. The hospital pharmacy compounding unit has used the CSTD PhaSeal since 2014. Recent evidence suggests an alternative CSTD, Equashield, may be a suitable alternative.
Aim
To determine if Equashield provides any advantages financially, in compounding time, rubber bung contamination, cytotoxic medicine surface contamination, staff satisfaction, and work health and safety benefits when compared to PhaSeal.
Method
CSTD PhaSeal was compared to Equashield by performing a financial cost comparison, time in motion study to compare compounding time, evaluation of product contamination rates and cytotoxic surface contamination levels, work health and safety (WH&S) review and staff satisfaction survey. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Children's Health Queensland Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: EX/23/QCHQ/97690). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the study conformed with the Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities and met local requirements for a quality assurance activity and did not involve any assessment of staff. Informed consent was obtained from all staff via verbal explanation of the project and their voluntary participation. Staff consented via completion of the voluntary survey.
Results
The cost to compound using Equashield instead of PhaSeal was increased by AUD $4684 over a 6-month period, with a compounding time saving benefit of approximately 1 min per product. Product contamination by rubber stopper core was 16 per 100,000 products using Equashield. Surface cytotoxic contamination levels remained undetectable before and after the comparison. Staff preferred Equashield and a WH&S product review determined Equashield required less torque and force during use and may reduce repetitive strain injury.
Conclusion
Equashield performed better in time to compound, rate of product contamination, staff satisfaction and WH&S assessment. The cost of Equashield was greater; however, Equashield demonstrated benefits over Phaseal in other areas of comparison, which could potentially offset the cost increase. The pharmacy demonstrated Equashield may be a suitable alternative to PhaSeal.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of this document is to describe the structure, function and operations of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, the official journal of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). It is owned, published by and copyrighted to SHPA. However, the Journal is to some extent unique within SHPA in that it ‘…has complete editorial freedom in terms of content and is not under the direction of the Society or its Council in such matters…’. This statement, originally based on a Role Statement for the Editor-in-Chief 1993, is also based on the definition of ‘editorial independence’ from the World Association of Medical Editors and adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.