Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35700925›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists2022

Impact of technology-assisted versus manual sterile compounding on safety and efficiency in a Canadian community hospital.

Mark Fan, Danny Yang, Becky Ng, Jocelyn Jackson, Katherine Bouris, Sharon Eng, Edith Rolko, Patricia Trbovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gravimetric compounding workflow technology insights for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mark FanCentre for Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Danny YangCentre for Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Becky NgCentre for Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jocelyn JacksonDepartment of Pharmacy, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Katherine BourisDepartment of Pharmacy, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharon EngDepartment of Pharmacy, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Edith RolkoDepartment of Pharmacy, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Patricia TrbovichCentre for Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInterventions to improve the safety and efficiency of manual sterile compounding are needed. This study evaluated the impact of a technology-assisted workflow system (TAWS) on sterile compounding safety (checks, traceability, and error detection), and efficiency (task time).

methodsObservations were conducted in an oncology pharmacy transitioning from a manual to a TAWS process for sterile compounding. Process maps were generated to compare manual and TAWS checks and traceability. The numbers and types of errors detected were collected, and task times were observed directly or via TAWS data logs.

resultsAnalysis of safety outcomes showed that, depending on preparation type, 3 to 4 product checks occurred in the manual process, compared to 6 to 10 checks with TAWS use. TAWS checks (barcoding and gravimetric verification) produced better traceability (documentation). The rate of incorrect-drug errors decreased with technology-assisted compounding (from 0.4% [5 of 1,350 preparations] with the manual process to 0% [0 of 1,565 preparations] with TAWS use; P < 0.02). The TAWS increased detection of (1) errors in the amount of drug withdrawn from vials (manual vs TAWS, 0.4% [5/1,350] vs 1.2% [18/1565]; P < 0.02), and (2) errors in the amount of drug injected into the final container (manual vs TAWS, 0% [0/1,236] vs 0.9% [11/1,272]; P < 0.002). With regard to efficiency outcomes, TAWS use increased the mean mixing time (manual vs TAWS, 275 seconds vs 355 seconds; P < 0.001), had no significant impact on average visual checking time (manual vs TAWS, 21.4 seconds vs 21.6 seconds), and decreased average physical checking time (manual vs TAWS, 58.6 seconds vs 50.9 seconds; P < 0.001).

conclusionIn comparison to manual sterile compounding, use of the TAWS improved safety through more frequent and rigorous checks, improved traceability (via superior documentation), and enhanced error detection. Results related to efficiency were mixed.

Indexed as

Pharmacy Service, HospitalCanadaDrug CompoundingHospitals, CommunityHumansTechnologychemotherapygravimetricpatient safetypharmaceuticalsterile compoundingtechnology

Identifiers

PMID35700925
PMCPMC9494253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.