分析人工和机器人配制肠外危险药物的生产时间和能力。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice Pub Date : 2024-06-21 DOI:10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576
Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul
{"title":"分析人工和机器人配制肠外危险药物的生产时间和能力。","authors":"Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul","doi":"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P<sub>1FTE1day</sub>) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.</p>","PeriodicalId":12050,"journal":{"name":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","volume":" ","pages":"352-357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs.\",\"authors\":\"Tjerk H Geersing, Demelza M Pourahmad, Femke Lodewijk, Eric J F Franssen, Catherijne A J Knibbe, Mirjam Crul\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P<sub>1FTE1day</sub>) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"352-357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265554/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:危险制剂的数量不断增加,再加上药物短缺,因此需要更高效的配制方法。本研究旨在评估人工、人工软件支持和机器人配制肠外危险药物所需的时间、生产能力和直接人工成本:这项多中心研究在荷兰三家采用不同配制方法的医院的临床药学部门进行:圣安东尼奥斯医院(手动软件支持配制)、阿姆斯特丹大学医学中心(阿姆斯特丹 UMC)(机器人配制和手动配制,无软件支持)和 OLVG(机器人配制)。三家医院都对个别危险药物进行了时间测量。在阿姆斯特丹 UMC 和圣安东尼斯医院,还确定了每个配制阶段的时间、生产能力和每次配制的直接人工成本。为了反映实际情况,还对机器人和人工配制的结合进行了研究:结果:机器人配料的整个配料过程(包括配料前的操作、释放时间和清洁时间)耗时 6:44 分钟,比有软件支持和无软件支持的人工配料(分别耗时 6:48 分钟和 9:48 分钟)要快。在有软件支持和无软件支持的情况下,人工配制每全职当量(FTE)一天的生产能力(P1FTE1day)为 15 种制剂,而仅使用机器人配制每全职当量一天的生产能力(P1FTE1day)为 57 种制剂。如果将人工和机器人配制结合起来,则生产能力为每个 FTE 每天 30 个制剂。在这种情况下,每次配制的直接人工成本为 5.21 欧元,而仅使用人工配制的直接人工成本为 13.18 欧元:结论:与人工配制相比,机器人配制在整个配制过程中速度更快。结论:与人工配料相比,机器人配料在整个配料过程中速度更快,与人工配料相比,人工配料与机器人配料相结合可使每个全职员工的配料量增加 100%,直接人工成本降低 2.5 倍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs.

Background: The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.

Methods: This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.

Results: The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P1FTE1day) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.

Conclusion: Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (EJHP) offers a high quality, peer-reviewed platform for the publication of practical and innovative research which aims to strengthen the profile and professional status of hospital pharmacists. EJHP is committed to being the leading journal on all aspects of hospital pharmacy, thereby advancing the science, practice and profession of hospital pharmacy. The journal aims to become a major source for education and inspiration to improve practice and the standard of patient care in hospitals and related institutions worldwide. EJHP is the only official journal of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists.
期刊最新文献
Mobile pharmacies of the Ukrainian chain 'Apteka 9-1-1': access to medicines during the war in Ukraine. Integrating automated dispensing cabinets into the medication dispensing process: feedback from the practice in European hospitals. Cardiovascular events in eGFR-mutation non-small-cell lung cancer patients on osimertinib. Ceftaroline combination therapy for methicillin resistant coagulase negative Staphylococcus bacteraemia and endocarditis. Predictive performance of glomerular filtration rate equations based on cystatin C, creatinine and their combination in critically ill patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1