Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38548384›Full record

ArticleArhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju2024

Evaluation of the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in healthcare sector: part II - the application of the FMECA method to compare manual vs automated preparation.

Stefano Dugheri, Giovanni Cappelli, Donato Squillaci, Ilaria Rapi, Niccolò Fanfani, Fabrizio Dori, Michele Cecchi, Viola Sordi, Andrea Ghiori, Nicola Mucci

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stefano DugheriUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.
Giovanni CappelliUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.
Donato SquillaciUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8665-845X
Ilaria RapiUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.
Niccolò FanfaniUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.
Fabrizio DoriAOU Meyer, Health and Safety Service, Florence, Italy.
Michele CecchiCareggi University Hospital, Pharmacy AD Preparation Unit, Florence, Italy.
Viola SordiCareggi University Hospital, Pharmacy AD Preparation Unit, Florence, Italy.
Andrea GhioriCareggi University Hospital, Pharmacy AD Preparation Unit, Florence, Italy.
Nicola MucciUniversity of Florence, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Laboratory, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITMeyer Children's Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare workers handling antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in preparation units run the risk of occupational exposure to contaminated surfaces and associated mutagenic, teratogenic, and oncogenic effects of those drugs. To minimise this risk, automated compounding systems, mainly robots, have been replacing manual preparation of intravenous drugs for the last 20 years now, and their number is on the rise. To evaluate contamination risk and the quality of the working environment for healthcare workers preparing ADs, we applied the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) method to compare the acceptable risk level (ARL), based on the risk priority number (RPN) calculated from five identified failure modes, with the measured risk level (MRL). The model has shown higher risk of exposure with powdered ADs and containers not protected by external plastic shrink film, but we found no clear difference in contamination risk between manual and automated preparation. This approach could be useful to assess and prevent the risk of occupational exposure for healthcare workers coming from residual cytotoxic contamination both for current handling procedures and the newly designed ones. At the same time, contamination monitoring data can be used to keep track of the quality of working conditions by comparing the observed risk profiles with the proposed ARL. Our study has shown that automated preparation may have an upper hand in terms of safety but still leaves room for improvement, at least in our four hospitals.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsOccupational ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHealth Care SectorHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansAntineoplastic Agentsacceptable risk levelsanaliza pogrešaka i kritičnosti posljedicafailure mode effects and criticality analysisizmjerene razine rizikameasured risk levelsocjena prioriteta rizikaprihvatljive razine rizikarisk priority number

Identifiers

PMID38548384
PMCPMC10978160
OpenAlexW4393281887

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.