Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: A study was conducted to compare an intravenous (IV) gravimetric technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) platform to an IV robotic system. In the study we reviewed both IV technology platforms using the same gravimetric quality assurance system, which allowed for direct comparison. METHODS: All oncology preparations compounded from January 2016 through December 2018 using either system were included in our retrospective analysis. Final preparation accuracy, IV system precision, and workflow throughput (analyzed using lean process methodologies) were evaluated. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that use of the IV gravimetric TAWF system was associated with a significantly lower percentage of accuracy errors compared to the IV robotics system (1.58% vs 2.47%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference in absolute precision (1.12 vs 1.12 P = 0.952). Lean analysis demonstrated that overall completion time (17:49 minutes vs 24:45 minutes) and compound preparation time (2:39 minutes vs 6:07 minutes) were less with the IV gravimetric TAWF vs the IV robotics system. CONCLUSION: Implementation of either an IV gravimetric TAWF system or IV robotics system will result in similar compounding accuracy and precision. Preparation time was less with use of the IV gravimetric TAWF vs the IV robotic system, but the IV robotic system required less human intervention. Both systems ensure medication safety for patients, although the IV robotic system has increased safeguards in place. Therefore, the primary driver for implementing these systems is alternative factors such as cost of systems implementation and maintenance, employee safety, and drug waste.
Pang et al. (Fri,) studied this question.