Canadian monitoring program of the surface contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs in 124 centers.

INTRODUCTION: Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs can lead to long-term adverse effects on workers' health. A reproducible Canadian surface monitoring program was established in 2010. The objective was to describe contamination with 11 antineoplastic drugs measured on 12 surfaces among hospitals participating in this annual monitoring program. METHODS: Each hospital sampled six standardized sites in oncology pharmacies and six in outpatient clinics. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was used for cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, doxorubicin, etoposide, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine. Platinum-based drugs were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; this excludes inorganic platinum from the environment. Hospitals filled out an online questionnaire about their practices; a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for some practices. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four Canadian hospitals participated. Cyclophosphamide (405/1445, 28%), gemcitabine (347/1445, 24%), and platinum (71/756, 9%) were the most frequent. The 90th percentile of surface concentration was 0.01 ng/cm² for cyclophosphamide and 0.003 ng/cm² for gemcitabine. Centers that prepared 5000 or more antineoplastic per year had higher concentrations of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine on their surfaces (p = 0.0001). Almost half maintained a hazardous drugs committee (46/119, 39%), but this did not influence the cyclophosphamide contamination (p = 0.051). Hazardous drugs training was more frequent for oncology pharmacy and nursing staff than for hygiene and sanitation staff. CONCLUSIONS: This monitoring program allowed centers to benchmark their contamination with pragmatic contamination thresholds derived from the Canadian 90th percentiles. Regular participation and local hazardous drug committee involvement provide an opportunity to review practices, identify risk areas, and refresh training.

National survey of safe handling of hazardous drugs in hospital settings: Use of an innovative approach.

INTRODUCTION: Workers can reduce their risk of exposure to hazardous drugs by following safe handling guidelines. Healthcare centers need to dedicate time and resources in order to implement new safety recommendations. The objective was to present the results of a national survey about the safe handling of hazardous drugs in healthcare centers. METHODS: Quebec healthcare centers performed an auto-evaluation to the newly updated safe handling guidelines in 2021. Centers rated each criterion as compliant or non-compliant. The guidelines tailored recommendations according to three categories of hazards: G1, consisting mostly of carcinogenic drugs; G2, other hazardous drugs; and G3, those with reproductive toxicity. The questionnaire prompted participants to document their planned corrective measures for non-compliant criteria. RESULTS: Most centers participated (28/29, 97%). The overall compliance was 58% (8761/15,216 criteria). The conformity per theme was hygiene and sanitation (1290/1,878, 69%), laundry (221/367, 60%), pharmacy (2658/4,474, 59%), nursing (3436/6,017, 57%), spills and accidental exposure (353/649, 54%), and general measures (803/1,831, 44%). It was higher for recommendations regarding G1s (4226/6,115, 69%) than for G2s (1626/3557, 46%) and G3s (372/916, 41%). CONCLUSIONS: This project successfully used an innovative approach that combined a national auto-evaluation survey, an actionable report, and the involvement of a community of practice. Centers were able to benchmark their implementation of safe handling guidelines, and community of practices may help in sharing the best practices. The design of the questionnaire helped in targeting corrective measures. More work is needed for safe handling practices that relate to G2 and G3 drugs.

Impact of medical and pharmaceutical interventions on anti-infective prescriptions: an observational study.

Appropriate prescribing of anti-infectives is a public health challenge. In our hospital, clinical microbiologists (clinical microbiology mobile unit, UMMc) and clinical pharmacists (clinical pharmacy, PHAc) carry out interventions on anti-infective prescriptions to improve practices. Our main objective was to evaluate the acceptance of UMMc and PHAc interventions on anti-infective prescriptions by quantifying the rate of prescription change 24 h after intervention. The secondary objective was to characterize the type of intervention and associate the rate of change for each. All prescriptions are computerized, and interventions traced via DxCare® software, which feeds a local data warehouse (HEGP-CDW). This descriptive, retrospective, single-center, uncontrolled study was conducted from January 2015 to December 2018. The data were extracted over this period from the data warehouse and analyzed using R software. UMMc interventions were accepted 72.2% of the time and PHA interventions 87.3%. The types of interventions found were mostly dose adjustments (61.1% for the UMMc and 54.2% for the PHAc) and proposals to change or stop a drug. Interventions have an impact on anti-infective prescriptions and are generally followed by clinicians. For the category "discontinuation of a molecule", almost half of the advice from the UMMc was refused. The collaboration between the UMMc and PHAc should be reinforced to improve acceptance.