Hubert Benoist, Clarisse Eveno, Sarah Wilson, Nicolas Vigneron, Jean-Marc Guilloit, Rémy Morello, Nicolas Simon, Pascal Odou, Guillaume Saint-Lorant
{"title":"Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC.","authors":"Hubert Benoist, Clarisse Eveno, Sarah Wilson, Nicolas Vigneron, Jean-Marc Guilloit, Rémy Morello, Nicolas Simon, Pascal Odou, Guillaume Saint-Lorant","doi":"10.1515/pp-2021-0151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.</p>","PeriodicalId":20231,"journal":{"name":"Pleura and Peritoneum","volume":"7 2","pages":"77-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166181/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleura and Peritoneum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2021-0151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Objectives: Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.
Methods: This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.
Results: Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.
Conclusions: This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.