Abstract

Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review

Author(s): Milibari Loay, Cotugno Michael, Belisle Caryn, Rocchio Megan, Patterson Robert F, Chacon Pablo, Fanikos John, Vo Peter

Issue: Jul/Aug 2020 - Volume 24, Number 4

Page(s): 346-351

Download in electronic PDF format for $75
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 1
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 2
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 3
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 4
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 5
  • Single Center Experience with Robot Technologies for Sterile Compounding: A Retrospective Review Page 6

Abstract

The compounding of sterile medication admixtures is a labor-intensive process and subject to potential human error. The addition of robotic devices and workflow technology may mitigate some of the challenges of compounding sterile product admixtures, especially for those associated with antineoplastic and hazardous medications. This article discusses the single-center experiences from October 2009 through August 2017 with various sterile compounding robotic technologies. The robotic devices included Intellifill  i.v., Cytocare, i.v.Station, i.v.Station ONCO, and i.v.Soft Assist. The objective of this analysis was to describe the experience with robotic technology and workflow devices in compounding sterile medication admixtures. The number of prepared doses for each device was tracked, and each device had a tool to validate the dose accuracy via specific gravity measurement. Nonhazardous preparations with a dose variation of > (+/- 10%) were considered failures. For hazardous medications, variation of > (+/- 5%) was considered a failure. Doses that were prepared manually were also analyzed. The Intellifill i.v. robot was used to compound more than 1,000,000 admixtures (75% of all compounded  products). The i.v.Station, Cytocare, i.v.Station  ONCO, and i.v.Soft Assist robots compounded 14%, 7%,  3%, and 0.7% of the total chemotherapy doses required. Identified barriers to optimal performance included device (hardware) and software failures as well as shortages with specific fluid and drug containers. The qualitative analysis was done for 36 drugs that were prepared using i.v.Station and i.v.Station ONCO. The passing rate was estimated to be 95%. Barriers to use the device included lack of the appropriate medication container, diluent supplies issues, and software failure. Robotic devices and workflow technology for compounding sterile medication admixtures were unable to produce all routine parenteral doses required daily.

Related Keywords

Related Categories

Printer-Friendly Version

Related Articles from IJPC

Issue/Page
View/Buy
Title/Author
(Click for Abstract / Details / Purchase)
Jul/Aug 2020
Pg. 346-351
Jul/Aug 2001
Pg. 254-258
Author(s): Rahe Hank
Mar/Apr 2004
Pg. 89-94
Author(s): Rahe Hank
May/Jun 2004
Pg. 181-185
May/Jun 2022
Pg. 219-228
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Mar/Apr 2021
Pg. 131-139
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Jan/Feb 2022
Pg. 41-49
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Sep/Oct 2023
Pg. 397-409
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Sep/Oct 2018
Pg. 387-398
Nov/Dec 2021
Pg. 491-496
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Jul/Aug 2023
Pg. 305-313
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Mar/Apr 2019
Pg. 123-130
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Jan/Feb 2011
Pg. 20-26
Author(s): Robinson Marian
May/Jun 2023
Pg. 223-229
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Jan/Feb 2014
Pg. 6-12
Jul/Aug 2013
Pg. 307-311
Author(s): McElhiney Linda F
Jan/Feb 2022
Pg. 10-17
Mar/Apr 2017
Pg. 133-142
Author(s): Akers Michael J
May/Jun 2020
Pg. 215-220
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr
Jul/Aug 2021
Pg. 311-317
Author(s): Allen Loyd V Jr