Impact of technology-assisted versus manual sterile compounding on safety and efficiency in a Canadian community hospital.

PURPOSE: Interventions to improve the safety and efficiency of manual sterile compounding are needed. This study evaluated the impact of a technology-assisted workflow system (TAWS) on sterile compounding safety (checks, traceability, and error detection), and efficiency (task time). METHODS: Observations were conducted in an oncology pharmacy transitioning from a manual to a TAWS process for sterile compounding. Process maps were generated to compare manual and TAWS checks and traceability. The numbers and types of errors detected were collected, and task times were observed directly or via TAWS data logs. RESULTS: Analysis of safety outcomes showed that, depending on preparation type, 3 to 4 product checks occurred in the manual process, compared to 6 to 10 checks with TAWS use. TAWS checks (barcoding and gravimetric verification) produced better traceability (documentation). The rate of incorrect-drug errors decreased with technology-assisted compounding (from 0.4% [5 of 1,350 preparations] with the manual process to 0% [0 of 1,565 preparations] with TAWS use; P < 0.02). The TAWS increased detection of (1) errors in the amount of drug withdrawn from vials (manual vs TAWS, 0.4% [5/1,350] vs 1.2% [18/1565]; P < 0.02), and (2) errors in the amount of drug injected into the final container (manual vs TAWS, 0% [0/1,236] vs 0.9% [11/1,272]; P < 0.002). With regard to efficiency outcomes, TAWS use increased the mean mixing time (manual vs TAWS, 275 seconds vs 355 seconds; P < 0.001), had no significant impact on average visual checking time (manual vs TAWS, 21.4 seconds vs 21.6 seconds), and decreased average physical checking time (manual vs TAWS, 58.6 seconds vs 50.9 seconds; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison to manual sterile compounding, use of the TAWS improved safety through more frequent and rigorous checks, improved traceability (via superior documentation), and enhanced error detection. Results related to efficiency were mixed.

Choosing Wisely: An idea worth sustaining.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the sustainability potential of Choosing Wisely (CW) to address unnecessary medical care at Ontario community hospitals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Ontario community hospitals and their affiliated family health teams (FHTs). STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods study involving the administration of a validated sustainability survey to CW implementation teams followed by their participation in focus groups. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Survey data were collected using an Excel file with an embedded, automated scoring system. We collated individual survey scores and generated aggregate team scores. We also performed descriptive statistics for quantitative data (frequencies, means). Qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative assessments to support data interpretations using the meta-matrix method. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Fifteen CW implementation teams across four Ontario community hospitals and six affiliated primary care FHTs participated. CW priority areas investigated were de-prescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and reducing Pre-Op testing and BUN/Urea lab testing. Survey results showed steady improvements in sustainability scores from baseline to final follow-up among most implementation teams: 10% increase for PPI de-prescribing (six FHTs) and 2% increase (three hospital teams); 18% increase in BUN/Urea lab testing (three hospital teams). Regardless of site or CW priority area, common facilitators were fit with existing processes and workflows, leadership support, and optimized team communication; common challenges were lack of awareness and buy-in, leadership engagement or a champion, and lack of fit with existing workflow and culture. All teams identified at least one challenge for which they co-designed and implemented a plan to maximize the sustainability potential of their CW initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the sustainability potential of an innovation such as Choosing Wisely is critical to ensuring that they have the best potential for impact. Our work highlights that implementation teams can be empowered to influence implementation efforts and to realize positive outcomes for their health care services and patients.