MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104588091 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v65i6.1190

Environmental Contamination with Hazardous Drugs in Quebec Hospitals

2012· article· en· W2104588091 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jean‐François Bussières, Cynthia Tanguay, Karine Touzin, Éric Langlois, Michel Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-Justine
KeywordsHazardous wasteContaminationEnvironmental healthMedicineEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : Since publication of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health alert on hazardous drugs in 2004, many health care organizations have reviewed their procedures for handling hazardous drugs. Occupational exposure may occur when handling, compounding, or administering a drug considered to be hazardous, at any stage from storage to waste management.Objectives : To describe environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and methotrexate in pharmacy and patient care areas of Quebec hospitals.Methods : Sixty-eight hospitals were invited to participate. At each hospital, 12 prespecified measurement sites (6 each within pharmacy and patient care areas) were sampled once (midweek, end of day). The samples were analyzed by ultra- performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry to determine the presence of the 3 drugs. The limits of detection (LODs) were 0.0015 ng/cm2 for cyclophosphamide, 0.0012 ng/cm2 for ifosfamide, and 0.0060 ng/cm2 for methotrexate.Results : Twenty-five (37%) of the hospitals agreed to participate. Samples from sites other than the 12 prespecified sites were excluded. Overall, 259 valid samples were collected between April 2008 and January 2010 (147 samples from pharmacy areas in 25 hospitals and 112 samples from patient care areas in 24 hospitals). No hospital was using a closed-system drug transfer device at the time of the study. The median (minimum, maximum) number of sites per hospital with at least 1 positive sample for at least 1 of the 3 hazardous drugs was 6 (1, 12). A total of 135 (52%) samples were positive for cyclophosphamide, 53 (20%) for ifosfamide, and 7 (3%) for methotrexate. The median (minimum, maximum) concentration in positive samples was 0.0035 ng/cm2 (below LOD, 28 ng/cm2) for cyclophosphamide, below LOD (below LOD, 8.6 ng/cm2) for ifosfamide, and below LOD (below LOD, 0.58 ng/cm2) for methotrexate.Conclusions : The levels of environmental contamination with 3 hazardous drugs in this multicentre study were similar to or below those in most published studies. Periodic measurement of surface contamination is necessary to ensure that current practices limit occupational exposure to hazardous drugs.RÉSUMÉContexte : Depuis la publication en 2004 d’une alerte sur les médicaments dangereux par le National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health des États-Unis, de nombreux organismes de soins de santé ont révisé leurs marches à suivre concernant la manipulation des médicaments dangereux. L’exposition professionnelle peut survenir durant la manipulation, la préparation ou l’administration d’un médicament considéré dangereux, à n’importe quelle étape entre l’entreposage et la gestion des déchets.Objectifs : Déterminer la contamination environnementale associée à la cyclophosphamide, à l’ifosfamide et au méthotrexate dans les pharmacies et les unités de soins d’hôpitaux québécois.Méthodes : On a invité 68 hôpitaux à participer à cette étude. Dans chacun des hôpitaux, on a procédé à un échantillonnage dans 12 sites de mesures préétablis (6 dans la pharmacie et 6 dans les unités de soins) à une occasion (en mi-semaine, en fin de journée). Les échantillons ont été analysés par chromatographie liquide à très haute performance couplée à la spectrométrie de masse en tandem pour déterminer la présence des trois médicaments. Les limites de détection (LD) étaient de 0,0015 ng/cm2 pour la cyclophosphamide, de 0.0012 ng/cm2 pour l’ifosfamide et de 0,0060 ng/cm2 pour le méthotrexate.Résultats : Vingt-cinq (37 %) hôpitaux ont accepté de participer à cette étude. Les échantillons prélevés ailleurs que dans les sites préétablis ont été exclus. En tout, 259 échantillons valides ont été recueillis entre avril 2008 et janvier 2010 (147 échantillons dans les pharmacies de 25 hôpitaux et 112 échantillons dans les unités de soins de 24 hôpitaux). Aucun des hôpitaux n’a utilisé un système de transfert fermé durant l’étude. Le nombre médian (minimum, maximum) de sites par hôpital ayant au moins un échantillon positif pour au moins un des trois médicaments dangereux était de 6 (1, 12). Un total de 135 (52 %) échantillons étaient positifs pour la cyclophosphamide, 53 (20 %) pour l’ifosfamide et 7 (3 %) pour le méthotrexate. La concentration médiane (minimum, maximum) de médicament dans les échantillons positifs était de 0,0035 ng/cm2 (sous la LD, 28 ng/cm2) pour la cyclophosphamide, sous la LD (sous la LD, 8,6 ng/cm2) pour l’ifosfamide et sous la LD (sous la LD, 0,58 ng/cm2) pour le méthotrexate.Conclusions : Les niveaux de contamination environnementale par les trois médicaments dangereux dans cette étude multicentrique étaient similaires ou inférieurs à ceux signalés dans la plupart des études publiées. La mesure périodique de la contamination de surface est nécessaire pour s’assurer que les pratiques actuelles limitent l’exposition professionnelle aux médicaments dangereux.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207