Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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: ) 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.
Geersing et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: