ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2022
Reducing the risk of non-sterility of aseptic handling in hospital pharmacies, part A: risk assessment.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized Solutions of Catecholamines in Intensive Care Medicine: Application, Safety and Economic Aspects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Reducing the risk of non-sterility of aseptic handling in hospital pharmacies, part C: applying risk assessment and risk control in practice.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023Article
- The Development and Implementation of Airflow Visualization Studies ("Smoke" Studies) as a Training Tool in Aseptic Hospital Compounding Facilities.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reducing the risk of non-sterility of aseptic handling in hospital pharmacies, part B: risk control.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine prospectively the sources of risk of non-sterility during aseptic handling and to quantify the risks of each of these sources.
methodsA risk assessment (RA) of non-sterility according to Failure Mode and Effect Analysis was executed by a multidisciplinary team of (hospital) pharmacists and technicians, a consultant experienced in aseptic processing and an independent facilitator. The team determined the sources of risk of non-sterility, a 5 point scale for severity, occurrence and detection, and risk acceptance levels. Input about general applied risk reduction was collected by audits in 10 hospital pharmacies. The results of these audits were used for determining the remaining risks. The results, as well as scientific information and the experience of the team members, was used to determine scores for severity, occurrence and detection.
resultsMultiplying the scores for severity, occurrence and detection results in the risk prioritisation number (RPN) which is a relative value of the remaining risks of non-sterility for each source. Incorrect disinfection techniques of non-sterile materials and the chances of touching critical spots were estimated as the greatest risks. The risk of non-sterility via the airborne route was low. RPN values were helpful in prioritising measures for additional risk reduction (this will be described in an accompanying article).
conclusionThe RA, described here, was a systematic survey related to all sources of risk of non-sterility during aseptic handling. The determined RPN values were helpful in prioritising measures for additional risk reduction.
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.