Search

To evaluate the efficacy of two decontamination protocols on cyclophosphamide surface contamination and to explore its lasting effect 30 days later.

The aim of this study was to review studies describing the use and the impact of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) systems for drug compounding in hospital pharmacy.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy / Journal Canadien de la Pharmacie Hospitalière is the property of Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to long-term adverse effects on workers' health. A reproducible Canadian surface monitoring program was established in 2010. The objective was to describe contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs measured on 12 surfaces among hospitals participating in this annual monitoring program. Methods: Each hospital sampled six standardized sites in oncology pharmacies and six in outpatient clinics. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was used for cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, doxorubicin, etoposide, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine. Platinum-based drugs were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; this excludes inorganic platinum from the environment. Hospitals filled out an online questionnaire about their practices; a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used for some practices. Results: One hundred and twenty-four Canadian hospitals participated. Cyclophosphamide (405/1445, 28%), gemcitabine (347/1445, 24%), and platinum (71/756, 9%) were the most frequent. The 90th percentile of surface concentration was 0.01 ng/cm² for cyclophosphamide and 0.003 ng/cm² for gemcitabine. Centers that prepared 5000 or more antineoplastic per year had higher concentrations of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine on their surfaces (p = 0.0001). Almost half maintained a hazardous drugs committee (46/119, 39%), but this did not influence the cyclophosphamide contamination (p = 0.051). Hazardous drugs training was more frequent for oncology pharmacy and nursing staff than for hygiene and sanitation staff. Conclusions: This monitoring program allowed centers to benchmark their contamination with pragmatic contamination thresholds derived from the Canadian 90th percentiles. Regular participation and local hazardous drug committee involvement provide an opportunity to review practices, identify risk areas, and refresh training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to long-term adverse effects on workers' health. Environmental monitoring is conducted once a year, as part of a Canadian monitoring program. The objective was to describe contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs measured on surfaces. Methods: Six standardized sites in oncology pharmacy and six in outpatient clinic were sampled in each hospital. Samples were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (non-platinum drugs) and by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (platinum-based drugs). The limits of detection (in ng/cm2) were: 0.0006 for cyclophosphamide; 0.001 for docetaxel; 0.04 for 5-fluorouracil; 0.0004 for gemcitabine; 0.0007 for irinotecan; 0.0009 for methotrexate; 0.004 for paclitaxel, 0.009 for vinorelbine, 0.02 for doxorubicine, 0.0037 for etoposide and 0.004 for the platinum. Sub-analyses were done with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Results: 122 Canadian hospitals participated. Cyclophosphamide (451/1412, 32% of positive samples, 90th percentile of concentration 0.0160 ng/cm2) and gemcitabine (320/1412, 23%, 0.0036 ng/cm2) were most frequently measured on surfaces. The surfaces most frequently contaminated with at least one drug were the front grille inside the biological safety cabinet (97/121, 80%) and the armrest of patient treatment chair (92/118, 78%).The distribution of cyclophosphamide concentration was higher for centers that prepared ≥ 5000 antineoplastic drug preparations/year (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This monitoring program allowed centers to benchmark their contamination with pragmatic contamination thresholds derived from the Canadian 90th percentiles. Problematic areas need corrective measures such as decontamination. The program helps to increase the workers' awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal de Pharmacie Clinique is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Healthcare workers exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to adverse health effects. Guidelines promote the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs, but no safe exposure limit was determined. Regular surface sampling contributes to ensuring workers safety. Methods: A cross-sectional monitoring is conducted once a year with voluntary Canadian centers, since 2010. Twelve standardized sampling sites were sampled. Samples were analyzed by high performance mass coupled liquid chromatography. The limits of detection (in ng/cm2) were: 0.001 for cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine; 0.3 for docetaxel and ifosfamide; 0.04 for 5-fluorouracil and paclitaxel; 0.003 for irinotecan; 0.002 for methotrexate; 0.01 for vinorelbine. Results: The surfaces from 109 centers were sampled between 01/01/2020–18/06/2020. Twenty-six centers delayed their participation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 1217 samples were analyzed. Surfaces were frequently contaminated with cyclophosphamide (34% positive, 75th percentile 0.00165 ng/cm2) and gemcitabine (16% and <0.001 ng/cm2). The armrest of patient treatment chairs (84% to at least one drug), the front grille inside the biological safety cabinet (BSC) (73%) and the floor in front of the BSC (55%) were frequently contaminated. Centers that prepared ≥5000 antineoplastic drugs annually had higher concentration of cyclophosphamide on their surfaces (p < 0.0001). Contamination measured on the surfaces was reduced from 2010 to 2020. Conclusions: This large-scale study showed reproducible long term follow up of the contamination of standardized sites of Canadian centers and a reduction in surface contamination from 2010 to 2020. Periodic surface sampling help centers meet their continuous improvements goals to reduce exposure as much as possible. The COVID-19 pandemic had a limited impact on the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé: La diffusion de données et d'indicateurs à l'équipe de la pharmacie comporte plusieurs bénéfices théoriques, mais ceux-ci sont peu diffusés et doivent être adaptés aux besoins de l'équipe. Méthodes. Étude descriptive transversale. L'objectif est de décrire l'utilisation actuelle et projetée d'indicateurs de gestion en pharmacie hospitalière au sein d'un centre hospitalier universitaire. La situation actuelle de la diffusion et de l'utilisation de données et d'indicateurs a été décrite. Des indicateurs et données d'intérêt ont été identifiés par revue de la littérature et en consultant les chefs d'équipe des secteurs visés. Un sondage a été envoyé à l'équipe. Chaque répondant devait coter les indicateurs d'intérêt de leur(s) secteur(s) de pratique selon un score de priorité d'affichage, permettant de calculer un score pondéré pour chaque donnée et indicateur. Résultats. Cinquante-sept réponses ont été obtenues (taux de participation de 63,3 % ; 57/90 personnes disponibles, soit 31 pharmaciens, 23 préparateurs, 2 membres non identifiés et 1 membre autre). Des 93 données et indicateurs proposés, le score pondéré de priorité d'affichage varie de 1,44 à 4,05 par item (moyenne de 2,69 ± 0,52). En utilisant arbitrairement un seuil de 2,5 ou moins, 37 de ces données et indicateurs ont été priorisés. Conclusion. Cette étude décrit une démarche structurée pour évaluer et sélectionner des données et indicateurs en vue de les diffuser aux membres d'un département de pharmacie via un tableau de bord. Un total de 93 données et indicateurs ont été identifiés par les membres de l'équipe afin de soutenir les pratiques en pharmacie hospitalière. Several theoretical benefits of disseminating data and indicators to the pharmacy team exist, but they are not usually distributed, and they must be adapted to the pharmacy team's needs. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The objective is to describe the current and projected use of hospital pharmacy management indicators within a university hospital center. The current state of dissemination and use of data and indicators was described. Indicators and data of interest were identified from a literature review and by consulting targeted sectors' team leaders. A survey was sent to the team where each respondent rated the indicators of interest for their area(s) of practice according to a display priority score, allowing for a weighted score to be calculated for each data and indicator. Results: Fifty-seven responses were obtained (participation rate of 63.3%; 57/90 people available, i.e., 31 pharmacists, 23 preparers, 2 unidentified members and 1 other member). Of the 93 data and indicators available, the weighted display priority score ranges from 1.44 to 4.05 per item (average of 2.69 ± 0.52). Using an arbitrary threshold of 2.5 or less, 37 of these data and indicators were prioritized. Conclusion: This study describes a structured process for evaluating and selecting data and indicators with the objective to share them to members of a pharmacy department via a dashboard. A total of 93 data and indicators were identified by team members to support hospital pharmacy practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study sought to assess the clinical performance of a machine learning model aiming to identify unusual medication orders.Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted at CHU Sainte-Justine, Canada, from April to August 2020. An unsupervised machine learning model based on GANomaly and 2 baselines were trained to learn medication order patterns from 10 years of data. Clinical pharmacists dichotomously (typical or atypical) labeled orders and pharmacological profiles (patients' medication lists). Confusion matrices, areas under the precision-recall curve (AUPRs), and F1 scores were calculated.Results: A total of 12 471 medication orders and 1356 profiles were labeled by 25 pharmacists. Medication order predictions showed a precision of 35%, recall (sensitivity) of 26%, and specificity of 97% as compared with pharmacist labels, with an AUPR of 0.25 and an F1 score of 0.30. Profile predictions showed a precision of 49%, recall of 75%, and specificity of 82%, with an AUPR of 0.60, and an F1 score of 0.59. The model performed better than the baselines. According to the pharmacists, the model was a useful screening tool, and 9 of 15 participants preferred predictions by medication, rather than by profile.Discussion: Predictions for profiles had higher F1 scores and recall compared with medication order predictions. Although the performance was much better for profile predictions, pharmacists generally preferred medication order predictions.Conclusions: Based on the AUPR, this model showed better performance for the identification of atypical pharmacological profiles than for medication orders. Pharmacists considered the model a useful screening tool. Improving these predictions should be prioritized in future research to maximize clinical impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship is a standard practice in health facilities to reduce both the misuse of antimicrobials and the risk of resistance., Objective: To determine the profile of antimicrobial use in the pediatric population of a university hospital centre from 2015/16 to 2018/19., Methods: In this retrospective, descriptive, cross-sectional study, the pharmacy information system was used to determine the number of days of therapy (DOTs) and the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 patient-days (PDs) for each antimicrobial and for specified care units in each year of the study period. For each measure, the ratio of 2018/19 to 2015/16 values was also calculated (and expressed as a proportion); where the value of this proportion was ≤ 0.8 or ≥ 1.2 (indicating a substantial change over the study period), an explanatory rating was assigned by consensus., Results: Over the study period, 94 antimicrobial agents were available at the study hospital: 70 antibiotics (including antiparasitics and antituberculosis drugs), 14 antivirals, and 10 antifungals. The total number of DOTs per 1000 PDs declined from 904 in 2015/16 to 867 in 2018/19. The 5 most commonly used antimicrobials over the years, expressed as minimum/maximum DOTs per 1000 PDs, were piperacillin-tazobactam (78/105), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (74/84), ampicillin (51/69), vancomycin (53/68), and cefotaxime (55/58). In the same period, the care units with the most antimicrobial use (expressed as minimum/maximum DOTs per 1000 PDs) were hematology-oncology (2529/2723), pediatrics (1006/1408), and pediatric intensive care (1328/1717)., Conclusions: This study showed generally stable consumption of antimicrobials from 2015/16 to 2018/19 in a Canadian mother-and-child university hospital centre. Although consumption was also stable within drug groups (antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals), there were important changes over time for some individual drugs. Several factors may explain these variations, including disruptions in supply, changes in practice, and changes in the prevalence of infections. Surveillance of antimicrobial use is an essential component of an antimicrobial stewardship program., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (2021 Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. All content in the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy is copyrighted by the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacy. In submitting their manuscripts, the authors transfer, assign, and otherwise convey all copyright ownership to CSHP.)

Competing Interests: Conflits d’intérêts: Aucun déclaration.