Comparison of closed system transfer devices for turnaround time and ease of use.

OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to compare three closed-system transfer devices with differing mechanical interfaces for their suitability for adoption into our daily practice. The secondary purpose was to use the results of this study to support the selection of one of the closed-system transfer devices, which would suit both the pharmacy and nursing staff at our institution, furthermore promoting the enculturation of international recommendations into our clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: The hazardous drug preparation process was observed and timed continuously from the moment the technician started compounding until the finished product was handed to the designated checker by raising hands. A self-administered, structured questionnaire was used for data collection looking at ease of use of each of the devices from the perspective of pharmacy technicians and nurses. The questionnaire contained an open-ended 10-point Likert-type scale of eight domains. RESULTS/KEY FINDINGS: An improvement in the compounding efficiency of hazardous drugs using PhaSeal™ ( n = 46), ChemoLock™ ( n = 45), and EquaShield® II ( n = 45), when compared respectively against the historical control ( n = 86), was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference among the different closed-system transfer devices for preparation of hazardous drugs was observed in our study ( p = 0.1). In terms of ease of use, there was no difference in preference for ChemoLock™ and Equashield®II among the pharmacy technicians with both scoring a mean score of 10 with regard to implementation. While PhaSeal™ scored a mean score of 7.2. Among the nursing staff there was a slight preference for ChemoLock™ over Equashield®II with a mean score of 9.2 and 9, respectively with regard to the recommended product, while PhaSeal™ scored a mean score of 7.4. Both nursing staff and pharmacy technicians had a preference ChemoLock™, with a mean score of 10 and 9.6, respectively in terms of on how easy was each device/system to use and overall impression for pharmacy technicians. This was followed by Equashield®II with a mean score of 9.8 and 8.6, respectively and then PhaSeal™ with a mean score of 7.2 and 6.6, respectively. Pharmacy technicians felt there were more steps, packaging and clutter when using PhaSeal® in comparison to the other devices. With Equashield® II, the estimation of clutter was higher than that of ChemoLock™ despite the number of packages being within a similar range. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: Our study found that with experienced staff, compounding of hazardous drugs with closed-system transfer devices can be as efficient as or even more so than with the traditional needle and syringe method. With the lack of statistically significant difference among the different closed-system transfer devices studied, in addition to the cost, ease of use was one of the factors that decided the products applicability in our institution.

Documenting clinical pharmacist intervention before and after the introduction of a web-based tool.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a database for documenting pharmacist intervention through a web-based application. The secondary endpoint was to determine if the new, web-based application provides any benefits with regards to documentation compliance by clinical pharmacists and ease of calculating cost savings compared with our previous method of documenting pharmacist interventions. SETTING: A tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. METHOD: The documentation of interventions using a web-based documentation application was retrospectively compared with previous methods of documentation of clinical pharmacists' interventions (multi-user PC software). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number and types of interventions recorded by pharmacists, data mining of archived data, efficiency, cost savings, and the accuracy of the data generated. RESULTS: The number of documented clinical interventions increased from 4,926, using the multi-user PC software, to 6,840 for the web-based application. On average, we observed 653 interventions per clinical pharmacist using the web-based application, which showed an increase compared to an average of 493 interventions using the old multi-user PC software. However, using a paired Student's t-test there was no statistical significance difference between the two means (P = 0.201). Using a χ² test, which captured management level and the type of system used, we found a strong effect of management level (P < 2.2 × 10⁻¹6) on the number of documented interventions. We also found a moderately significant relationship between educational level and the number of interventions documented (P = 0.045). The mean ± SD time required to document an intervention using the web-based application was 66.55 ± 8.98 s. Using the web-based application, 29.06% of documented interventions resulted in cost-savings, while using the multi-user PC software only 4.75% of interventions did so. The majority of cost savings across both platforms resulted from the discontinuation of unnecessary drugs and a change in dosage regimen. Data collection using the web-based application was consistently more complete when compared to the multi-user PC software. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based application is an efficient system for documenting pharmacist interventions. Its flexibility and accessibility, as well as its detailed report functionality is a useful tool that will hopefully encourage other primary and secondary care facilities to adopt similar applications.