Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation

<b>Background:</b> The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. <b>Methods:</b> This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Published
2024-09-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225241278203
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Safe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation

Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford, H. Cho
2 citations
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Safe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
3.43
article

Implementation and Evaluation of APOTECAchemo in a Community Cancer Center: A Comparative Study of Robotic Versus Manual Antineoplastic Preparation

Lyn Wells, Zachery Halford, H. Cho
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> The ever-increasing complexity and demand for antineoplastic therapy necessitates innovative solutions to improve the accuracy and safety of drug preparation. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the utilization of an advanced robotic chemotherapy drug compounding system (APOTECAchemo) at a Community Cancer Center (CCC), examining accuracy, efficiency, and staff perceptions. <b>Methods:</b> This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the preparation of 7 intravenous (IV) antineoplastics at a CCC over a 1-year period. We compared manual methods with the APOTECAchemo system. The primary measure of accuracy was the absolute drug error percentage, with a comparison of pass and fail rates. Secondary endpoints included the overall use of APOTECAchemo for all IV antineoplastic preparations and average preparation times. An end-user satisfaction survey gathered feedback from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. <b>Results:</b> A total of 8210 doses were prepared at the CCC, with 52.1% compounded by APOTECAchemo and 47.9% manually. Of these, the CCC prepared 5526 doses of the 7 routinely compounded antineoplastics. APOTECAchemo prepared 3851 (69.7%) doses, while manual compounding accounted for 1675 (30.3%) doses. The average absolute drug error was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.35-1.53) with robot compounding versus 1.17% (95% CI, 1.03-1.32) with manual (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The overall failure rate was 0.72%. There were 25 failed doses (0.45%), with 8 (0.2%) failures attributed to APOTECAchemo and 17 (1%) to manual compounding (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The average dose preparation time was longer with APOTECAchemo compared with manual methods. The end-user satisfaction survey indicated a positive reception toward APOTECAchemo. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study demonstrates the successful implementation, extensive utilization, and high accuracy of both APOTECAchemo and manual compounding methods in the preparation of routinely administered antineoplastics at a CCC.

Journal of Pharmacy TechnologyVol. 40(6)
Union University (US), Jackson-Madison County General Hospital (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Safe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
3.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.