Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: The benefits of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) compared with manual workflow (non-TAWF) on i. v. room efficiency, costs, and safety at hospitals with more than 200 beds are evaluated. METHODS: Eight hospitals across the United States (4 with TAWF, 4 without) were evaluated, and the characteristics of medication errors and frequency of each error type were measured across the different institutions. The average turnaround time per workflow step and the cost to prepare each compounded sterile preparation (CSP) were also calculated, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The TAWF hospital sites detected errors at a significantly higher rate (3. 13%) than the non-TAWF hospital sites (0. 22%) (p < 0. 05). The top error reporting category for the TAWF sites was incorrect medication (63. 30%), while the top error reporting category for the non-TAWF sites was incorrect medication volume (18. 34%). Use of TAWF was associated with a preparation time decrease of 2. 82 min/CSP, a compounding time decrease of 2. 94 min/CSP, and a decrease in overall cost to prepare of 1. 60/CSP. CONCLUSION: The use of TAWF in the i. v. room was associated with the detection of 14 times more errors than the use of non-TAWF, demonstrating different frequency of error in the results. TAWF also led to a faster preparation time that had a lower cost for preparation.
Eckel et al. (Mon,) studied this question.