Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation.

Clicks: 377
ID: 11824
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #9 of 164 articles by views in American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 164 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated.For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods.The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members' perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method.The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.
Reference Key
bucci2019evaluationamerican Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Bucci, Tyler G;Hedrick, Tanner L;Roberts, Patricia A;Lin, Kinny;South, Mark D;Willoughby, Ian R;Eckel, Stephen F;Hess, Elizabeth T;Eberwein, Samuel;Amerine, Lindsey B;
Journal American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
Year 2019
DOI
10.1093/ajhp/zxz097
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.