Objectives The risk of chronic exposure to antineoplastic agents in hospitals, mainly by skin contact with contaminated surfaces, is well established. The aim of this study was to assess indirectly the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastics drugs at two hospitals by using an environmental monitoring, and to suggest ways of improving the exposure to healthcare workers. Methods An observational study of care practices on both sites was carried out. A wipe sampling campaign was then designed to study environmental contamination throughout the chemotherapy process: receipt, storage, compounding, transport, administration, and elimination areas. Samples were analyzed by a validated LC-MS/MS method allowing trace quantification of cyclophosphamide. A guidance ‘safe value’ of 0.10 ng/cm2 was considered. Results A total of 293 samples were analyzed, of which 58% were found to be positive. In the compounding units, the drug vials were contaminated before [range = (non-quantifiable [NQ]-0.71) ng/cm2] and after cleaning procedure [(NQ-0.62) ng/cm2], particularly when the flip-off lid was removed during cleaning. The contamination found on manual preparations was operator-dependent: [non-detectable (ND)-3.51] ng/cm2 on infusion bag surfaces; (780.61–24 698.98) ng/cm2 on medication ports. In the case of automated preparations, the average contamination was higher on infusion bag surfaces [(2.43–36.86) ng/cm2] and lower on medication ports [(0.43–7.65) ng/cm2] than manual preparations. Contamination of the analytical control area was also highlighted. In the daily care unit, the contamination was located near the infusion area (armchairs, infusion stands, floor, and patient toilets), and varied somewhat between the two sites, especially on the floor with (0.46–27.32) compared to (ND-0.18) ng/cm2. We did not detect contamination on the transport boxes, on the door handles or in the disposal areas. Conclusions The variability of contamination observed between the two sites can be explained in part by the difference in routine practices, especially training of the staff, and cleaning procedures. Findings were communicated to healthcare workers, and news interventions were implemented based on wipe sampling results. This study demonstrated a method for routine environmental monitoring and worker education as a strategy to reduce occupational exposure.

In the context of securing medication management systems (MMS) in healthcare habilities, implementation of an electronic MMS is a priority area of work. The quality requirements for the production of radiopharmaceuticals have increased significantly in the field of radiopharmacy. The deployment of Information Technology (IT) tools is essential to secure the radiopharmaceutical medication use process. The aim of this work is to propose the first consensual tool to validate radiopharmacy software approved by a panel of experts. A literature review was conduced related to the validation of hospital pharmacy software. The Delphi method was chosen for achieving a consensus in this study. Surveys were sent by mail to selected experts involved in the MMS. Twenty-seven replies were recorded (77%) to the first round, and 17 responses were recorded to the second survey. The final tool is a grid with 44 items. We proposed the first consensual tool to validate radiopharmacy software. This tool could be implemented in all French radiopharmacy to improve quality.

ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist interventions on injectable chemotherapy prescription and the safety of early prescription practice in an adult daily care unit.MethodsPrescription errors were recorded before and after implementing corrective measures. Errors identified from the pre-intervention period (i) were analysed to identify areas for improvement. During the post-intervention period (ii) we compared the errors in anticipated prescription (AP) with those in real-time prescriptions (RTP). We performed Chi-square statistical tests (α=0.05).ResultsBefore implementing corrective measures (i), 377 errors were recorded (ie, 3.02% of prescriptions). After the implementation of corrective measures (ii), there was a significant decrease in errors, with 94 errors recorded (ie, 1.20% of prescriptions). The error rate in AP and RTP groups was 1.34% and 1.02%, respectively, without a significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of prescription review, as well as collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, in reducing prescription errors, whether these prescriptions were anticipated or not.