American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2018
Evaluation of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow system on hazardous sterile product preparation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts Patricia A, Willoughby Ian R, Barnes Nathan, Eckel Stephen F, Paruscio Ashley, Valgus John M, Amerine Lindsey B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on hazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) production time, staff perception of safety, and job satisfaction was evaluated.
METHODS: For 2 weeks before implementation of a gravimetric-based TAWF, staff utilized an automated punch clock to document the time to prepare and check CSPs compounded volumetrically. Simultaneously, an anonymous, online survey was e-mailed to staff to evaluate their perceptions regarding the safety of volumetric preparation and satisfaction with their role preparing CSPs. At 30 and 90 days postimplementation of the TAWF, staff completed identical follow-up surveys to evaluate safety and satisfaction using the gravimetric-based TAWF. The TAWF software captured product preparation and check times postimplementation. Data regarding the accuracy of compounding were collected postimplementation and compared to accuracy data available in the published literature.
RESULTS: The median time to prepare CSPs preimplementation (n = 643) was 445 seconds versus 359 seconds (n = 728) 90 days after implementation of the gravimetric-based TAWF (p < 0.001). The median time to review and check CSPs was 45 seconds before implementation and 19 seconds 90 days after implementation (p < 0.01). Survey respondents preferred to use the TAWF to compound CSPs over volumetric preparation. There was no difference in respondents' perception of safety and accuracy of the TAWF preimplementation versus postimplementation.
CONCLUSION: The gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of hazardous CSPs was faster and more accurate than manual volumetric preparation and improved staff perception regarding the accuracy of the CSP preparation process.
METHODS: For 2 weeks before implementation of a gravimetric-based TAWF, staff utilized an automated punch clock to document the time to prepare and check CSPs compounded volumetrically. Simultaneously, an anonymous, online survey was e-mailed to staff to evaluate their perceptions regarding the safety of volumetric preparation and satisfaction with their role preparing CSPs. At 30 and 90 days postimplementation of the TAWF, staff completed identical follow-up surveys to evaluate safety and satisfaction using the gravimetric-based TAWF. The TAWF software captured product preparation and check times postimplementation. Data regarding the accuracy of compounding were collected postimplementation and compared to accuracy data available in the published literature.
RESULTS: The median time to prepare CSPs preimplementation (n = 643) was 445 seconds versus 359 seconds (n = 728) 90 days after implementation of the gravimetric-based TAWF (p < 0.001). The median time to review and check CSPs was 45 seconds before implementation and 19 seconds 90 days after implementation (p < 0.01). Survey respondents preferred to use the TAWF to compound CSPs over volumetric preparation. There was no difference in respondents' perception of safety and accuracy of the TAWF preimplementation versus postimplementation.
CONCLUSION: The gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of hazardous CSPs was faster and more accurate than manual volumetric preparation and improved staff perception regarding the accuracy of the CSP preparation process.