Economic evaluation of Viaflex® with vial adapter in a unit‐dose drug distribution system
- 66 Downloads
The cost of parenteral admixtures has an important impact on the hospital budget. Recently, a Viaflex® with vial adapter (named 'minibag plus' in some countries) has been commercialized in order to facilitate parenteral admixture preparation. In the present study a preparation using Viaflex® with a vial adapter has been economically compared with a preparation with a traditional Viaflex® (without adapter) in a centralized unit or in nursing wards in a unit‐dose drug distribution system. A cost‐analysis was conducted from the hospital point of view. Direct costs were considered: these included supplies and human resources. Differences in the whole process between the two types of Viaflex® were analysed. The process included: purchasing, reception, storage, medical order record, preparation in the Pharmacy Service (PS), delivery from the PS to the nursing unit, preparation by the nurse, return of unused material to the PS. Human resource costs were estimated by time counting and multiplying by the average salary. To estimate wasted material, drug and supplies delivered from the PS and returned to the PS were counted during 26 days. With the new Viaflex® costs are reduced by 30% in comparison with drug dilution using the traditional Viaflex® in a centralized unit of the PS, and by 13.4% in comparison with preparation with the traditional Viaflex® in the nursing ward. In addition it can be estimated that contamination risk with the new Viaflex® is lower than preparation in the nursing ward with the traditional Viaflex®. Therefore, owing to its lower cost we recommend the use of Viaflex® with vial adapter for drug dilution for those vials that are compatible with the system.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Akers MJ. Current problems and innovations in intravenous drug delivery. Am J Hosp Pharm 1987;44:2528-30.Google Scholar
- 2.Hudson TJ, Ambroziak EM, Coley RMR. Potential for microbial contamination of add-vantage admixtures. J Pharm Technol 1992;8:195-7.Google Scholar
- 3.Bier KL, Latiolais CJ, Schneider PJ, Moore TD, Buesching WJ, Wentworth BC. Effect of laminar air flow and clean-room dress on contamination rates of intravenous admixtures. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981;38(8):1144-7.Google Scholar
- 4.Morgan E, Fincher JH, Sadik F, Mikeal RL. Evaluation of laminar air flow and nursing station environments for the preparation of intravenous admixtures. Am J Hosp Pharm 1972;29:1020-24.Google Scholar
- 5.Sanjurjo M, Requena T, Requena ME, Fernández J. Estimación de costes asociados a los fármacos en el ámbito hospitalario. Propuesta de un modelo. Farmacoeconomía 1995;I,9-22.Google Scholar
- 6.Marquina Verde MC, Giráldez Deiró J. Estudio farmacoeconómico de dos presentaciones de ceftazidima. Farm Hosp 1996;20(6):375-380.Google Scholar
- 7.Gandy R, Beaumont I, Lee G, Cumming I. Risk management and the aseptic preparation of medicines. Eur Hosp Pharm 1998;4(4):114-119.Google Scholar
- 8.Fink RM, Steven WJ. Monitoring system to verify activation of ADD-Vantage system doses. Am J Hosp Pharm 1989;46:702.Google Scholar