This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Meeting the needs


Providing best compromise between safety requirements and ease of handling Title of study


Safer preparation of methotrexate syringe outside a centralised cytotoxic preparation unit


Authors Virginie Ribeiro-Crespel, Stephanie Poullain-Termeau, Caroline Jaskopwiec, Sophie Saizy-Callaert and Armelle Thebault


Institute


Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Creteil, 40 avenue de Verdun, Creteil, France


Source


Hospital Pharmacy Europe Number 46, September/October 2009


Aim of study ● Whereas all cytotoxic preparations for cancer wards are centralised, syringes of methotrexate prescribed for ectopic pregnancy are prepared by nursing staff in the Gynaecological Emergency Unit without specific safety measures. Therefore, the aim of the study was to determine and then implement on the ward a safe drug-transfer device, to prevent contamination and ensure staff safety.


Method ● A system with a vented vial access (to avoid aerosols) and a luer lock syringe


adaptor (allowing connection with an intramuscular needle for administration) was acquired.


● A pharmaceutical evaluation was conducted based on the devices specifications supplied by the manufacturers and on practical experiments, including a fluorescein test. The evaluation was completed by an estimate of extra cost that would be incurred by the use of such devices.


● A technical assessment was performed by nursing staff on the ward, simulating a preparation, after training and instruction was provided by a pharmacist. Nurses were given a questionnaire with ten criteria to evaluate packaging (labelling, opening), handling and safety, with an overall rating out of ten.


● Empty drug vials filled with 2ml fluorescein and sealed with drug vial system caps were used.


Conclusions ● It was calculated that any of the three devices under consideration would result in a cost increase for the hospital: 65% for the SpirosTM the TexiumTM


220% for the PhaSealTM


system (Hospira), 90% for system (CareFusion) and system (BD


Medical). This calculation took into consideration the price of the device and of the cytotoxic drug.


● The PhaSealTM system was not


pursued, on the grounds that the nurses found its use counter-intuitive. With less than one preparation per month per nurse the expected frequency, it was thought that there was too great a risk of misuse.


● Nurses on the Gynaecological Emergency Unit found the TexiumTM device easier to handle, safer and more efficient than the SpirosTM


system.


● Two significant benefits were that the SmartSiteTM


(TexiumTM technology)


vial access devices (1) enabled the easy removal of the entire low-level drug solution, and (2) kept perfectly connected to the vial, whereas the ClaveTM


vial access spike (SpirosTM technology) was unsteady.


● Nurses gave the CareFusion device a ten out of ten, and the Hospira device five out of ten.


● The TexiumTM system represented the


best compromise between safety and ease of handling.


14 www.hospitalpharmacyeurope.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28