Comparison of closed‐system transfer devices to compound cytotoxic medicines in a hospital pharmacy compounding unit.

Background: The use of a closed system transfer device (CSTD) is recommended when compounding hazardous cytotoxic medicines for operator and environmental protection. The hospital pharmacy compounding unit has used the CSTD PhaSeal since 2014. Recent evidence suggests an alternative CSTD, Equashield...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Pharmacy Practice & Research Vol. 55; no. 2; pp. 138 - 146
Autor principal: Smith, Evonne Katherine
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Apr2025
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=184445983&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 184445983
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        1445937X
        6CKV
      jtl: Journal of Pharmacy Practice & Research
      issn: 1445937X
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2025
      vid: 55
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        184445983
        181801708
        184445983
        184445983
        10.1002/jppr.1954
        184445983
      ppf: 138
      ppct: 8
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Comparison of closed‐system transfer devices to compound cytotoxic medicines in a hospital pharmacy compounding unit.
      aug:
        au: Smith, Evonne Katherine
        affil: Pharmacist Clinical Lead – Aseptic Production Unit, Queensland Children's Hospital Pharmacy Department, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, South Brisbane, Australia
      sug:
        subj:
          Antineoplastic Agents
          Drug Compounding Equipment and Supplies
          Drug Compounding Economics
          Drug Contamination Evaluation
          Job Satisfaction Evaluation
          Product Evaluation
          Cost Benefit Analysis
          Occupational Health
          Occupational Safety
          Quality Control (Technology)
          Pharmacy Service
          Human
          Queensland
          Comparative Studies
          Time
          Oncology
          Pediatrics
          Product Packaging
          Questionnaires
          Occupational-Related Injuries Prevention and Control
          Pharmacists Psychosocial Factors
          Pharmacy Technicians Psychosocial Factors
          Pharmacist Attitudes
      ab: Background: The use of a closed system transfer device (CSTD) is recommended when compounding hazardous cytotoxic medicines for operator and environmental protection. The hospital pharmacy compounding unit has used the CSTD PhaSeal since 2014. Recent evidence suggests an alternative CSTD, Equashield, may be a suitable alternative. Aim: To determine if Equashield provides any advantages financially, in compounding time, rubber bung contamination, cytotoxic medicine surface contamination, staff satisfaction, and work health and safety benefits when compared to PhaSeal. Method: CSTD PhaSeal was compared to Equashield by performing a financial cost comparison, time in motion study to compare compounding time, evaluation of product contamination rates and cytotoxic surface contamination levels, work health and safety (WH&S) review and staff satisfaction survey. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the Children's Health Queensland Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: EX/23/QCHQ/97690). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: the study conformed with the Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities and met local requirements for a quality assurance activity and did not involve any assessment of staff. Informed consent was obtained from all staff via verbal explanation of the project and their voluntary participation. Staff consented via completion of the voluntary survey. Results: The cost to compound using Equashield instead of PhaSeal was increased by AUD $4684 over a 6‐month period, with a compounding time saving benefit of approximately 1 min per product. Product contamination by rubber stopper core was 16 per 100,000 products using Equashield. Surface cytotoxic contamination levels remained undetectable before and after the comparison. Staff preferred Equashield and a WH&S product review determined Equashield required less torque and force during use and may reduce repetitive strain injury. Conclusion: Equashield performed better in time to compound, rate of product contamination, staff satisfaction and WH&S assessment. The cost of Equashield was greater; however, Equashield demonstrated benefits over Phaseal in other areas of comparison, which could potentially offset the cost increase. The pharmacy demonstrated Equashield may be a suitable alternative to PhaSeal.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N