RISK ANALYSIS OF THE ADMINISTRATION CIRCUIT FOR ANTICANCER PREPARATIONS USING THE C-LOG® SYSTEM
Pdf
European Statement
Patient Safety and Quality Assurance
Author(s)
S. Arraki Zava (1), A. Kandel (1), S. Herioux (1), C. Monpagens (1), L. Capayrou (2), C. Tailhades (1), V. Grenouilleau (1), S. Ferrari (1)
(1) Pharmacy Department, Pau Hospital Center, 64000, France
(2) Quality Department, Pau Hospital Center, 64000, France
Why was it done?
In the current context of rising production of anticancer preparations (AP), our hospital has adopted the C-log® tool to improve the safety and traceability of AP administration.
What was done?
Evaluation of the integration of the C-log® solution into the AP administration circuit in the oncology day ward.
How was it done?
From June to September 2024, a risk mapping (RM) using FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) for the AP administration circuit was conducted by a multidisciplinary team (quality and IT departments, hospital pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, logisticians, nurses, and healthcare managers). After evaluating the circuit, failures, their causes and effects were identified. A residual criticality score was calculated (C=F*S*M) for each failure, considering its frequency F, severity S, and level of control M, and classified into 3 categories: acceptable (C<4), vigilance (4≤C<10), unacceptable (C≥10). An action plan was developed with corrective measures (CM).
What has been achieved?
RM identified 39 failures: 34 acceptable, 4 unacceptable, and 1 classified as vigilance. First unacceptable risk was related to disruptive patient episode identifier (PEI) scanning due to wristband opacity. Another came from mismatches between the wristband PEI and that on the AP label, when patients had multiple administration days with different PEIs for each, while AP labels only contained the first PEI. Third one is related to nurse’s lack of training which led them to miss important administration information on the software. The last unacceptable risk was increased time to trace all protocol administrations (checkpoints, premedication, AP…). The vigilance risk was due to the inability to trace anticipated premedication intake on the software.
CM includes the use of clearer wristbands and permanent ID number instead of PEI solving unacceptable failures. We decided to use C-log® for AP administration traceability only, while CHIMIO® remains to trace all other protocol administrations. New training sessions for nurses will be scheduled.
What next?
RM highlighted C-log’s contribution to reinforce identity vigilance. It demonstrated the importance of nurse’s acceptance of the software and therefore the need for sufficient training time on the tool. Focusing on an entire protocol administration traceability, C-log® couldn’t replace CHIMIO® yet. Once all the CM are implemented, the RM will be re-evaluated to assess their impact.