Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2024 Jun 21;31(4):352-357.
doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003576.

Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs

Tjerk H Geersing  1   2 , Demelza M Pourahmad  3 , Femke Lodewijk  4 , Eric J F Franssen  5 , Catherijne A J Knibbe  6   2 , Mirjam Crul  3
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Analysis of production time and capacity for manual and robotic compounding scenarios for parenteral hazardous drugs

Tjerk H Geersing et al. Eur J Hosp Pharm. .

Abstract

Background: The increasing amount of hazardous preparations in combination with shortages leads to a call for more efficient compounding methods. This research aims to evaluate the required amount of time, production capacity and direct labour costs of the manual, manual software-supported and robotic compounding of parenteral hazardous drugs.

Methods: This multicentre study was conducted at the clinical pharmacy departments of three Dutch hospitals with different compounding methods: St Antonius hospital (manual software-supported compounding), Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam UMC) (both robotic compounding and manual compounding without software support) and OLVG (robotic compounding). Time measurements of individual hazardous drugs were performed in all three hospitals. At Amsterdam UMC and St Antonius hospital, the times per compounding phase, the production capacity and the direct labour costs per preparation were also determined. To reflect real-world situations, the combination of robotic and manual compounding was also studied.

Results: The total compounding process, including the actions before compounding and the release-time and cleaning time, lasted 6:44 min with robotic compounding and was faster than manual compounding with and without software support (6:48 and 9:48 min, respectively). The production capacity of one full-time equivalent (FTE) on 1 day (P1FTE1day) was 15 preparations per FTE per day with manual compounding with and without software support, and 57 preparations per FTE per day with only robotic compounding. If manual and robotic compounding were combined, the production capacity was 30 preparations per FTE per day. In this setting, the direct labour costs per preparation were €5.21, while these costs were €13.18 with only manual compounding.

Conclusion: Compared with manual compounding, robotic compounding was faster over the total compounding process. A combination of manual compounding and robotic compounding could lead to 100% more preparations per FTE and 2.5 times lower direct labour costs compared with manual compounding.

Keywords: Antineoplastic agents; Automation; Drug Compounding; Health Care Economics and Organizations; Robotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Included hospitals, their methods of compounding parenteral hazardous drugs and the topics studied.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Compounding and cleaning times per phase and per preparation for all different compounding processes. *Average cleaning time of one cleaning, used to calculate the cleaning time per preparation. Hereby taking into account that the robot was cleaned once a week and the safety cabinets for manual preparations every day.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Global Burden of Disease 2019 Cancer Collaboration, Kocarnik JM, Compton K, et al. Cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. JAMA Oncol 2022;8:420–44. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schneider PJ, Pedersen CA, Ganio MC, et al. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: workforce-2018. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2019;76:1127–41. 10.1093/ajhp/zxz102 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zamani M, Chan K, Wilcox J. Pharmacy technicians’ perceptions of risk reduction strategies implemented in response to the repetitive strain injury associated with sterile compounding. Int J Pharm Compd 2021;25:182–6. - PubMed
    1. Pang B, Earl M, Knoer S, et al. Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravimetrics-assisted workflow processes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2021;78:122–34. 10.1093/ajhp/zxaa366 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Batson S, Mitchell SA, Lau D, et al. Automated compounding technology and workflow solutions for the preparation of chemotherapy: a systematic review. Eur J Hosp Pharm 2020;27:330–6. 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-001948 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources