Table 1



|Table 1 |

|Summary of the Evidence for Control Measures to Reduce Hazardous Drug Exposure Levels 2 and 3 |

|Author & Date |Design |Sample Size |Setting |Control Measures |Outcomes |Limitations |Strength |

| | | | | | | |& Quality* |

|Sessink et al. |Quasi- experimental, |114 wipe samples |22 hospital pharmacies|Closed- System Drug |Median values for surface |Full effectiveness of |2-A |

|(2010) |pre-post test | |in the U.S. |Transfer Device |contamination with |intervention (CSTD) cannot | |

| | | | |(CSTD) |cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and|be assessed with continued | |

| | | | | |5- FU were reduced by 95%, 90%, |environmental contamination| |

| | | | | |and |from exterior vials. | |

| | | | | |65%. |Nursing administration | |

| | | | | | |sites not assessed. | |

|Guillemett |Quasi- |225 wipe |Canada: |Centralize |Cyclophosphamide |Only one of two |2-B |

|e et al. |experimental, |samples |heme- |priming of |on the floor of the |interventions | |

|(2014) |prospective, |(75 wipes |oncology |IV fluid in |care unit was |tested in the | |

| |comparative |over 3 |satellite |pharmacy; |significantly |care unit (CSTD | |

| |study; pre- |phases) |pharmacy |Closed- |reduced (median |not evaluated | |

| |post test | |and care |System |[min-max 0.8 [.06- |by wipe tests); | |

| | | |unit in a |Drug |.09] ng/cm2 vs. 0.3 |observation | |

| | | |pediatric |Transfer |[.02-.05], |bias attested by | |

| | | |hospital |Device |p< 0.0001). After a |research | |

| | | | | |CSTD, a significant |assistant | |

| | | | | |difference was | | |

| | | | | |found for the | | |

| | | | | |proportion of | | |

| | | | | |positive | | |

| | | | | |cyclophosphamide samples (15/45 | | |

| | | | | |(33%) vs. 0/45 | | |

| | | | | |(0%), p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download