Angela W Yaniv1, Adam Orsborn2, Joseph J Bonkowski3, Lita Chew4,5, Irene Krämer6, Samuel Calabrese7, Maria de la Paz Pacheco Ramos8, Alessandro Palombi9, Siew Woon Lim10, Osama Tabbara11, Carla Masini12, Rudolf Schierl13, Celestino Bufarini14, Nate Peaty3, Demis Paolucci9. 1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. yaniva@ccf.org. 2. Veldt Community, Winston-Salem, NC. 3. Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC. 4. National University of Singapore, Singapore. 5. National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Pharmacy Department, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. 7. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 8. Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 9. Loccioni Humancare, Angeli di Rosora, Italy. 10. Pharmacy Department, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 11. Department of Pharmacy Services, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 12. Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Meldola, Italy. 13. Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Muenchen, Germany. 14. University Hospital of Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of recommendations for advancing automated i.v. medication compounding is described. SUMMARY: Managing the shift from manual to robotic compounding of i.v. therapies requires an awareness of how automation affects practice and how to best implement robotics into current practice. An international panel of pharmacy professionals, researchers, and technology leaders with experience in i.v. robotics collaborated during a two-day meeting in August 2014 to define a general set of principles to broaden the understanding of the fundamental elements of robotic compounding worldwide. Participants were divided into four working groups (technology and safety; drugs and products; personnel; and facilities and quality) to analyze specific aspects of robotic compounding practice. The four working groups produced an initial list of 92 statements. This list was condensed to 35 statements by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from the different work groups. Participants were surveyed again to assess agreement with the 35 statements and solicit additional clarification. Respondents expressed full agreement with 25 recommendations. Six statements received one or more "don't know" responses, with all other respondents in agreement. Four statements had a combination of "don't know" and "disagree" responses. A total of 32 comments were recorded in free-text fields, including requests for clarification and suggestions for rewording the statements. CONCLUSION: An international panel of pharmacy professionals, researchers, and technology leaders with experience in i.v. robotics developed a set of 35 recommendations toward a better understanding of the role of automated i.v. compounding in hospital and health-system pharmacies worldwide.
PURPOSE: The development of recommendations for advancing automated i.v. medication compounding is described. SUMMARY: Managing the shift from manual to robotic compounding of i.v. therapies requires an awareness of how automation affects practice and how to best implement robotics into current practice. An international panel of pharmacy professionals, researchers, and technology leaders with experience in i.v. robotics collaborated during a two-day meeting in August 2014 to define a general set of principles to broaden the understanding of the fundamental elements of robotic compounding worldwide. Participants were divided into four working groups (technology and safety; drugs and products; personnel; and facilities and quality) to analyze specific aspects of robotic compounding practice. The four working groups produced an initial list of 92 statements. This list was condensed to 35 statements by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from the different work groups. Participants were surveyed again to assess agreement with the 35 statements and solicit additional clarification. Respondents expressed full agreement with 25 recommendations. Six statements received one or more "don't know" responses, with all other respondents in agreement. Four statements had a combination of "don't know" and "disagree" responses. A total of 32 comments were recorded in free-text fields, including requests for clarification and suggestions for rewording the statements. CONCLUSION: An international panel of pharmacy professionals, researchers, and technology leaders with experience in i.v. robotics developed a set of 35 recommendations toward a better understanding of the role of automated i.v. compounding in hospital and health-system pharmacies worldwide.
Authors: Sarah Batson; Stephen A Mitchell; Davina Lau; Michela Canobbio; Anna de Goede; Inderjit Singh; Ulrich Loesch Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2019-08-21