Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1093/ajhp/zxaa366 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/ajhp/zxaa366 33064792!7665334!33064792     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33064792&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Am+J+Health+Syst+Pharm 2021 ; 78 (2): 122-134 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33064792|t=2021. Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravimetrics-assisted workflow processes |pdf=|usr=}}{{33064792}} gab.com Text Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravimetrics-assisted workflow processes JO: Am J Health Syst Pharm http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33064792 #FOAvip 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. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravimetrics-assisted workflow processes ????Am J Health Syst Pharm http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33064792 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33064792 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33064792}}</ref> Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravimetrics-assisted workflow processes #MMPMID33064792 Pang B; Earl M; Knoer S; Yaniv A; Willner M; Boyd A Am J Health Syst Pharm 2021[Jan]; 78 (2): 122-134 PMID33064792show ga 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. |*Pharmacy Service, Hospital[MESH] |Drug Compounding[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Medication Errors/prevention & control[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH]Comparison of IV oncology infusions compounded via robotics and gravi(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing