Search

Background: Cytotoxic medicine contamination of preparation and administration areas of oncology healthcare facilities poses a risk to staff facing repeated low‐level exposure over time. The use of closed‐system transfer devices (CSTDs) during preparation and administration of cytotoxic products may reduce the levels of contamination. The primary aim was to determine the levels of cytotoxic medicine contamination in preparation and administration areas of hospitals that use CSTDs compared to those that do not. Aim: The primary aim was to determine the levels of cytotoxic medicine contamination in preparation and administration areas of hospitals that use CSTDs compared to those that do not. Method: A retrospective, cross‐sectional study across four Australian hospitals was conducted. Cytotoxic medicine contamination was determined via surface wipe sampling on six specified surfaces. The samples were tested for cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, etoposide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, topotecan, and vinblastine. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: ETH01899). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: this was a study involving sample testing only and did not include human participants or participation. Results: Environmental contamination with cytotoxic medications was observed at all hospitals, regardless of the CSTD used. Of the 24 samples tested, the agent most frequently seen was ifosfamide with 29% (n = 7), followed by cyclophosphamide 13% (n = 3), and methotrexate 8% (n = 2). There was no statistically significant difference between hospitals that used CSTDs compared to hospitals that did not (25% vs 42%, p = 0.67). Contamination was more extensive in preparation areas than administration areas, and was observed on the biological safety cabinets (BSC) worktop, packaging bench, and floor in front of the BSCs. Conclusion: All sites had contamination present for cytotoxic medicines. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of contaminated surfaces between sites that used CSTDs versus sites where CSTDs were not used. Only ifosfamide contamination was identified in pharmacy areas that used CSTDs. Safe work practices and staff training are encouraged to further minimise exposure risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many studies have explored the effect of electronic medication management systems (EMMS) on doctors' and nurses' work, but few have focused specifically on pharmacists' work. Aim: This study examined how implementation of a commercial EMMS affected the work of pharmacists in an Australian paediatric hospital. In particular, the study investigated whether any pharmacy tasks changed or were eliminated, or whether new tasks emerged following EMMS introduction. Methods: Two rounds of semistructured interviews with pharmacists, one 4 months and the other 1 year after EMMS implementation, were conducted. In total, 17 pharmacists were interviewed, comprising inpatient, outpatient and oncology pharmacists, as well as pharmacy managers. Results: EMMS implementation eliminated a small number of tasks, changed some tasks and created many new work tasks for pharmacists. These new tasks included helping doctors and nurses to use the EMMS, duplicated data entry and the review of additional information. Pharmacists held the view that their workload had increased and that additional pharmacists were necessary to cope with the new work requirements associated with the EMMS. Some problems were perceived to be the result of implementation of a US‐designed EMMS that did not fully support Australian pharmacy workflows. Conclusion: Implementation of an EMMS in a paediatric hospital affected pharmacists' work in a variety of ways, predominately by introducing new tasks. Anticipating how workflows will change with EMMS implementation is challenging. Undertaking regular reviews of workflow and planning for an increased burden on pharmacy staff is likely to improve the transition from paper to electronic medication management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To date, there is no national or international consensus on which key performance indicators ( KPIs) should be used to measure hospital pharmacy performance. Aim To explore hospital pharmacists' perspectives on the role of KPIs and to use their perspectives to suggest a set of KPIs for use in Australian hospital pharmacy practice. Methods The study comprised of two parts. Part A involved semi-structured interviews with hospital pharmacists from major Sydney metropolitan hospitals; interviews were conducted until theme saturation was attained. Part B involved an online survey comprising Likert-scale responses and open-ended questions; the survey was distributed nationally to pharmacists via the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia ( SHPA) eNewsletter and Facebook page. Results Part A: 19 hospital pharmacists were interviewed. Part B: 49 online surveys were received (after excluding incomplete submissions). Overall, the emergent themes identified that hospital pharmacists agreed that KPIs are a valuable tool for individual and departmental performance measurement; the use of KPIs was challenged by data collection difficulties, a lack of engagement from staff, and a lack of clarification regarding the intended use of KPIs and their relevance. The study identified a consolidated set of seven KPIs, proposed as standard measures for hospital pharmacy practice. Conclusion There is a perceived need to develop national standardised KPIs to demonstrate the value of pharmacy services at the individual and departmental levels. However, there are challenges that will need to be addressed before the implementation of a set of consolidated KPIs that encompasses the full scope of pharmacy activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]