Efficacité de 6 scénarios de décontamination de bras de fauteuils contaminés volontairement au cyclophosphamide.

Background: The arms of chairs in outpatient oncology clinics are frequently contaminated with cyclophosphamide. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of decontamination scenarios. Methods: This was a descriptive simulation-type study of 6 decontamination scenarios of a silicone fabric surface contaminated with 10 µg of cyclophosphamide. The decontamination products tested (quaternary ammonium, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.005% detergent, and sodium hypochlorite 0.5%) were applied with microfibre wipes. Residual contamination was measured using an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry system with identical cyclophosphamide detection and quantification limits (0.0006 ng/cm2). Results: Among the 59 samples, 3 blanks were negative, 5 allowed measurement of the recovery rate (93.7% [standard deviation 4.6%]), and 51 were experimental. The average efficiency of the agents was greater than or equal to 99.79%. Regardless of the agent used, effectiveness was 99.30% (SD 1.20%) after 1 cleanse (n = 18), 99.90% (SD 0.15%) after 2 cleanses (n = 18), and 99.95% (SD 0.06%) after 3 cleanses (n = 15). Conclusion: The 6 decontamination scenarios were effective. Repeated cleaning marginally increased the effectiveness of decontamination.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Errors in prescribing injectable anticancer drugs: benefits of a pharmaceutical long-term monitoring to improve patient safety in a European comprehensive cancer centre.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist interventions on injectable chemotherapy prescription and the safety of early prescription practice in an adult daily care unit. METHODS: Prescription errors were recorded before and after implementing corrective measures. Errors identified from the pre-intervention period (i) were analysed to identify areas for improvement. During the post-intervention period (ii) we compared the errors in anticipated prescription (AP) with those in real-time prescriptions (RTP). We performed Chi-square statistical tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: Before implementing corrective measures (i), 377 errors were recorded (ie, 3.02% of prescriptions). After the implementation of corrective measures (ii), there was a significant decrease in errors, with 94 errors recorded (ie, 1.20% of prescriptions). The error rate in AP and RTP groups was 1.34% and 1.02%, respectively, without a significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of prescription review, as well as collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, in reducing prescription errors, whether these prescriptions were anticipated or not.