K H M Larmené-Beld1, J Touwen- Spronk2, J Luttjeboer3, K Taxis3, M J Postma4. 1. Unit of Pharmacotherapy, Epidemiology, and Pharmacoeconomics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, the Netherlands. Electronic address: k.h.m.beld@rug.nl. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, the Netherlands. 3. Unit of Pharmacotherapy, Epidemiology, and Pharmacoeconomics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Unit of Pharmacotherapy, Epidemiology, and Pharmacoeconomics, University of Groningen, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Department of Economics, Econometrics, and Finance, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preparation errors occur frequently during conventional preparation of parenteral medication in the clinical environment, causing patient harm and costs for the national health care system. The use of ready-to-administer prefilled sterilized syringes (PFSSs) produced by the hospital pharmacy can reduce preparation errors and the risk of bacteremia from contamination of the intravenous medication. The aim of this research is to compare the total costs of the conventional preparation method (CPM) with the PFSS method. METHODS: In this cost-minimization analysis, costs related to the preparation of the medication, bacteremia from contamination, adverse drug events as a result of preparation medication errors, and wastage of syringes were taken into account. Annual costs in a general Dutch hospital were consistently calculated. Three scenarios were analyzed: (1) all preparations as CPM (864,246 administrations per year), (2) all preparations as PFSSs, and (3) 50% as PFSSs and 50% as CPM. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: The first scenario found higher annual costs at €14.0 million (US$16.0 million) compared with the second scenario (€4.1 million, US$4.7 million). The most realistic situation (third scenario) found savings of €4.9 million (US$5.6 million) compared with the first scenario. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost savings of PFSSs were strongly influenced by decreased risk of medication errors and contamination of intravenous medication. Extrapolating these results nationwide indicated potential savings of >€300 million (US$342 million) if only PFSSs were used. IMPLICATIONS: The use of PFSSs prepared in the hospital pharmacy yielded cost savings compared with the CPM on the ward in the Dutch hospital.
PURPOSE: Preparation errors occur frequently during conventional preparation of parenteral medication in the clinical environment, causing patient harm and costs for the national health care system. The use of ready-to-administer prefilled sterilized syringes (PFSSs) produced by the hospital pharmacy can reduce preparation errors and the risk of bacteremia from contamination of the intravenous medication. The aim of this research is to compare the total costs of the conventional preparation method (CPM) with the PFSS method. METHODS: In this cost-minimization analysis, costs related to the preparation of the medication, bacteremia from contamination, adverse drug events as a result of preparation medication errors, and wastage of syringes were taken into account. Annual costs in a general Dutch hospital were consistently calculated. Three scenarios were analyzed: (1) all preparations as CPM (864,246 administrations per year), (2) all preparations as PFSSs, and (3) 50% as PFSSs and 50% as CPM. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: The first scenario found higher annual costs at €14.0 million (US$16.0 million) compared with the second scenario (€4.1 million, US$4.7 million). The most realistic situation (third scenario) found savings of €4.9 million (US$5.6 million) compared with the first scenario. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost savings of PFSSs were strongly influenced by decreased risk of medication errors and contamination of intravenous medication. Extrapolating these results nationwide indicated potential savings of >€300 million (US$342 million) if only PFSSs were used. IMPLICATIONS: The use of PFSSs prepared in the hospital pharmacy yielded cost savings compared with the CPM on the ward in the Dutch hospital.
Authors: Janique G Jessurun; Nicole G M Hunfeld; Joost van Rosmalen; Monique van Dijk; Patricia M L A van den Bemt Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2021-08-07