{"title":"在社区癌症中心实施和评估 APOTECAchemo:机器人与手工抗肿瘤准备的比较研究。","authors":"Han Na Cho, Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford","doi":"10.1177/87551225241278203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. <b>Methods:</b> This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536520/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation.\",\"authors\":\"Han Na Cho, Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/87551225241278203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. <b>Methods:</b> This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536520/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225241278203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225241278203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation.
Background: The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. Objective: To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. Results: A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (P < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (P < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.
期刊介绍:
For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.