Abstract

Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study

Author(s): Penoyer Daleen, Giuliano Karen, Middleton Aurea

Issue: Mar/Apr 2023 - Volume 27, Number 2

Page(s): 169-174

Download in electronic PDF format for $75
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 1
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 2
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 3
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 4
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 5
  • Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study Page 6

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare residual volume and time to prepare and reconstitute cefazolin using 3 different reconstitution devices while observing for use errors, participant feedback, and particulate after reconstitution. After demonstrations on the use of each device and practicing twice with each device, participants performed reconstitutions 3 times per device while being timed and observed on device preparation and assembly, mixing the drug with intravenous fluid into vials, and transfer of vial contents into the intravenous bags. Participants completed surveys to assess perceptions on use of each device. Intravenous bags were then hung for 60 minutes and observed for residual fluid and particulate matter. Residual vial volumes ranged from 0.05 mL to 2.6 mL: >0.3 mL in Device 2 (16.7%), Device 1 (55.6%), and Device 3 (81.1%). Most participants (83%) had experience with Device 1. Mean (standard deviation) total time in seconds to reconstitute medication significantly differed between devices (P<0.001): Device 1, 70.98 (15.72), Device 2, 99.11 (14.87), Device 3, 103.7 (18.99). Device assembly took the longest time and significantly differed between devices (P<0.001): Device 1, 18.76 (8.13), Device 2, 36.09 (8.05), and Device 3, 31.21 (7.75). Survey results (60=max score) were significantly different (P<0.001): Device 1, 54.5 (5.3), Device 2, 44 (13.1), Device 3, 37.1 (9.1). Nurses ranked Device 1 the highest (79%) and pharmacy technicians favored Device 2 (60%). No particulates were found (n = 270). Potentially significant residual vial volume was found and use errors were concerning in Device 2 and Device 3, potentially resulting in incomplete medication dosing. Mean times for reconstitution were <104 seconds, with Device 1 being the fastest and most favored.

Related Keywords

Related Categories

Printer-Friendly Version

Related Articles from IJPC

Issue/Page
View/Buy
Title/Author
(Click for Abstract / Details / Purchase)
Mar/Apr 2023
Pg. 169-174
Mar/Apr 2013
Pg. 100-110
Mar/Apr 2003
Pg. 106-113
Author(s): Davidson Gigi S
Sep/Oct 2012
Pg. 431-433
Sep/Oct 2022
Pg. 358-362
Mar/Apr 2016
Pg. 148-154
May/Jun 2011
Pg. 252-254
May/Jun 2011
Pg. 183-188
Jul/Aug 2013
Pg. 270-280
Jan/Feb 2015
Pg. 30-37
Sep/Oct 2010
Pg. 436-439
Sep/Oct 2020
Pg. 426-433
Sep/Oct 2010
Pg. 370-372
Jul/Aug 2000
Pg. 281-285
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Nov/Dec 2000
Pg. 442-443
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Sep/Oct 2000
Pg. 364
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Nov/Dec 2021
Pg. 515-522
Jan/Feb 2022
Pg. 72-79
Jan/Feb 2021
Pg. 52-61
Nov/Dec 2007
Pg. 520-524