ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The proceedings of an international summit on the current and desired future state of use of robotic systems to compound intravenous (IV) solutions are summarized. SUMMARY: The International IV Robotics Summit was held at the Cleveland Clinic main campus in Cleveland, OH, on April 29 and 30, 2019. The purpose of the summit was 2-fold: (1) to define the current state of robotic IV compounding and (2) to develop a guide for automation companies, pharmacy departments, and drug manufacturers to improve the technology and expand the use of IV robotics in health systems in the future. The first day of the summit included 45-minute presentations by each of the speakers. Each lecturer recounted a different hospital's experience implementing and using IV robotics. On day 2 of the summit, an expert panel dedicated to mapping the future of IV robotics was convened to determine barriers to widespread adoption of IV robotics in health systems and offer potential solutions to remove these barriers. The expert panel targeted 3 specific audiences: robot manufacturers, drug manufacturers, and fellow pharmacy leaders. CONCLUSION: It is the hope of the international faculty that the information that emerged from the summit can be used by others to successfully implement IV compounding robotics in their sterile products areas to maximize patient safety. The summit also served as a call to action for pharmacy leaders, drug manufacturers, and robotic companies to develop a safer, more efficient future for patients by working together to optimize the development and operation of IV robotics.
Subject(s)
Robotics , Automation , HumansABSTRACT
PURPOSE: A study was conducted to compare an intravenous (IV) gravimetric technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) platform to an IV robotic system. In the study we reviewed both IV technology platforms using the same gravimetric quality assurance system, which allowed for direct comparison. METHODS: All oncology preparations compounded from January 2016 through December 2018 using either system were included in our retrospective analysis. Final preparation accuracy, IV system precision, and workflow throughput (analyzed using lean process methodologies) were evaluated. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that use of the IV gravimetric TAWF system was associated with a significantly lower percentage of accuracy errors compared to the IV robotics system (1.58% vs 2.47%, P < 0.001), with no significant difference in absolute precision (1.12 vs 1.12 P = 0.952). Lean analysis demonstrated that overall completion time (17:49 minutes vs 24:45 minutes) and compound preparation time (2:39 minutes vs 6:07 minutes) were less with the IV gravimetric TAWF vs the IV robotics system. CONCLUSION: Implementation of either an IV gravimetric TAWF system or IV robotics system will result in similar compounding accuracy and precision. Preparation time was less with use of the IV gravimetric TAWF vs the IV robotic system, but the IV robotic system required less human intervention. Both systems ensure medication safety for patients, although the IV robotic system has increased safeguards in place. Therefore, the primary driver for implementing these systems is alternative factors such as cost of systems implementation and maintenance, employee safety, and drug waste.