Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul
{"title":"分析人工和机器人配制肠外危险药物的生产时间和能力。","authors":"Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul","doi":"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P<sub>1FTE1day</sub>) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.</p>","PeriodicalId":12050,"journal":{"name":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","volume":" ","pages":"352-357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs.\",\"authors\":\"Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P<sub>1FTE1day</sub>) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"352-357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265554/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs.
Background: The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.
Methods: This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.
Results: The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P1FTE1day) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.
Conclusion: Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.
期刊介绍：
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (EJHP) offers a high quality, peer-reviewed platform for the publication of practical and innovative research which aims to strengthen the profile and professional status of hospital pharmacists. EJHP is committed to being the leading journal on all aspects of hospital pharmacy, thereby advancing the science, practice and profession of hospital pharmacy. The journal aims to become a major source for education and inspiration to improve practice and the standard of patient care in hospitals and related institutions worldwide.
EJHP is the only official journal of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
