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

  • reconstitution devices
  • intravenous administration
  • cefazolin
  • antibiotic agent
  • intravenous drugs
  • point of care activated devices
  • ready to use medications
  • device assembly
  • mixing time
  • residual volume
  • hospital pharmacy

Related Categories

  • INFUSION
  • PACKAGING
  • PARENTERALS
  • PEER-REVIEWED
  • SUPPORT
  • NURSING

Printer-Friendly Version

Related Articles from IJPC

Issue/Page
View/Buy		 Title/Author
(Click for Abstract / Details / Purchase)
Mar/Apr 2023
Pg. 169-174
Comparison of Three Reconstitution Devices: A Simulated Time and Use Study
Author(s): Penoyer Daleen, Giuliano Karen, Middleton Aurea
Mar/Apr 2013
Pg. 100-110
Intravenous Needle-free Injection Devices: New Information for Compounding Pharmacists
Author(s): Macklin Denise, Blackburn Paul L
Mar/Apr 2003
Pg. 106-113
Veterinary Transdermal Medications: A to Z
Author(s): Davidson Gigi S
Sep/Oct 2012
Pg. 431-433
Use of a Closed-system Drug Transfer Device (PhaSeal) and Impact on Preparation Time
Author(s): Sanchez-Rubio Ferrandez J, Lozano M C, Iglesias I, Sanchez-Rubio Ferrandez L, Rodriguez Vargas B, Moreno Diaz R
Sep/Oct 2022
Pg. 358-362
Hazardous Drug Enteral Device: A Closed System Device for Crushing and Dispersing Hazardous Drug Tablets for Enteral Administration
Author(s): Lopez C Vidal, Rios GL Quito
Mar/Apr 2016
Pg. 148-154
Safe Cytotoxic Drug Preparation Using a Closed-system Transfer Device: Technical and Practical Evaluation of a New Device (Vialshield/Texium) Comparatively to a Reference One (Phaseal)
Author(s): Garrigue Philippe, Montana Marc, Ventre Christophe, Savry Amadine, Gauthier-Villano Laurence, Pisano Pascale, Pourroy Bertrand
May/Jun 2011
Pg. 252-254
Stability of Ertapenem in an Elastomeric Infusion Device
Author(s): Phipps Stephen D, Peacock Gina F, Smith Douglas L
May/Jun 2011
Pg. 183-188
Home Infusion: Available Vascular Access Devices and Common Therapies
Author(s): Kennedy Steve, Williams LaVonn A
Jul/Aug 2013
Pg. 270-280
Jet Injection Devices for the Needle-free Administration of Compounds, Vaccines, and Other Agents
Author(s): Logomasini Mark A, Stout Richard R, Ron Marcinkoski
Jan/Feb 2015
Pg. 30-37
Agar Transfer Devices for Environmental Sampling in the Compounding Pharmacy: Science and Compliance
Author(s): Grilli Anthony, Sutton Scott
Sep/Oct 2010
Pg. 436-439
Stability and Compatibility of Reconstituted Caspofungin in Select Elastomeric Infusion Device
Author(s): Tsiouris Maria, Ulmer Marisa, Yurcho James F, Hooper Kevin L, Gui Min
Sep/Oct 2020
Pg. 426-433
Efficacy of an Automated Robotic Cleaning Device for Compounding Pharmacies
Author(s): Polonini Hudson, Dijkers Eli CF, Ferreira Anderson O, da Silva Sharlene L, Araújo Paulo Victor C, Koulouridas Savvas
Sep/Oct 2010
Pg. 370-372
Implementation of a Viable Air-Sampling Program Using a Volumetric Collection Device
Author(s): Kennedy Steve, Siefert Lisa Linn, Lange Matt
Jul/Aug 2000
Pg. 281-285
Ambulatory Pumps: Part I of a Three-Part Series - Peristaltic Infusion Devices Review
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Nov/Dec 2000
Pg. 442-443
Disposable Ambulatory Infusion Devices: A Review - Part 3
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Sep/Oct 2000
Pg. 364
Ambulatory Syringe Infusion Devices: A Review - Part 2
Author(s): Ashworth Lisa D
Nov/Dec 2021
Pg. 515-522
Evaluation of Closed-system Transfer Devices in Reducing Potential Risk for Surface Contamination Following Simulated Hazardous-drug Preparation and Compounding
Author(s): Soefje Scott, Rickabaugh Keith, Rajkumar Rahul, Wall Kathryn P
Jan/Feb 2022
Pg. 72-79
Evaluation of Closed-system Transfer Devices in Reducing Potential Risk for Surface Contamination Following Simulated Hazardous-drug Preparation and Compounding (Reprint)
Author(s): Soefje Scott, Rickabaugh Keith, Rajkumar Rahul, Wall Kathryn P
Jan/Feb 2021
Pg. 52-61
Physical Compatibility of Cefiderocol with Selected Intravenous Drugs During Simulated Y-site Administration
Author(s): Lu Juan, Liu Qiang, Kupiec Thomas C, Vail Herbert, Lynch Leslie R, Fam David S, Vu Nicole T
Nov/Dec 2007
Pg. 520-524
Palonosetron Hydrochloride Compatibility and Stability with Three Beta-Lactam Antibiotics During Simulated Y-Site Administration
Author(s): Ben Michel, Trusley Craig, Kupiec Thomas C, Trissel Lawrence A