ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Development and content validation of an assessment tool for medicine compounding on hospital wards.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a medication-safety self-assessment tool for rural primary care units - a case from Finnish Lapland.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Good handling practice of parenterally administered medicines in neonatal intensive care units - position paper of an interdisciplinary working group.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Medicines should be compounded by using an aseptic technique to assure patient safety. The parenteral administration of microbiologically contaminated doses can result in bacteriaemia, other morbidity and even death. Objective The purpose was to develop and content validate an assessment tool for medicine compounding on hospital wards suitable for self-assessment and external audit to ensure the safety of medicine compounding on wards. Setting Finland as setting. Method The first draft of the tool was based on ISMP "Guidelines for safe preparation of sterile compounds" and a systematic literature search. The tool was validated by using a two-rounded Delphi-method with a panel of 19 experts. Suitability and feasibility of each item was evaluated. Main outcome measure An agreement of ≥70% on each item was required. Results The final tool comprises of 64 items under the following topics: (1) general principles of good compounding practices (23 items), (2) recording and confirming medicine orders on the wards (5 items), (3) storage of medicines on the wards (7), (4) aseptic compounding of intravenous medicines (25 items) and (5) quality assurance (4 items). Most items related to General principles of good compounding practices and Compounding of IV medicines (36 and 38% of the items, respectively). Conclusion It was possible to develop and content validate, by the Delphi method, an assessment tool for safe aseptic compounding on hospital wards. A two-round Delphi process yielded consensus on 64 items for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.