#syringe unit Archives

An Assessment of Exposed Syringe Inner Walls as a Route of Exposure from Hazardous Drugs

Tamar Apper on March 19, 2025

Abstract Introduction:

Maintaining safe working environments for health care personnel, especially for those who regularly handle hazardous drugs (HDs), is of utmost importance. Studies have shown that when closed system transfer devices. (CSTDs) are used with standard open barrel syringes, cyclophosphamide (CP), a commonly used HD, is transferred to the syringe plunger during compounding or administration processes. This contamination can then be transferred to the work environment, endangering workers.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to quantify HD contamination of the inner surface of standard open barrel syringes and to compare contamination levels between three commonly used HDs: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), CP, and ifosfamide (IF).

Methods:

Each HD was transferred from a vial to an intravenous (IV) bag using a standard open barrel syringe and Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) PhaSealTM CSTD connectors. Samples were taken from the inner surface of each of the syringe barrels to measure the amount of HD contamination. Each drug was tested 15 times and compared to a positive control.

Results:

Significant amounts of each drug were transferred to the inner surfaces of the syringes. The average amounts of each drug measured were: 5-FU, 1327.7 ng (standard deviation [SD] =873.6 ng); CP, 1074.8 ng (SD=481.6 ng); and IF, 1700.0 ng (SD =1098.1 ng). There was no statistically significant difference between the three drugs (p=0.14).

Conclusion:

This study underscores the presence of HD contamination on standard open barrel syringe inner surfaces after transfer of drug from vial to syringe to IV bag. Such contamination could be spread in the working environment and expose health care workers to harm.

1. Introduction

Hazardous drugs (HDs), as defined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), are Food and Drug Administration approved medications that meet certain toxicity criteria for humans or animals. These drugs have been determined to be carcinogenic, reproductively toxic, developmentally toxic, genotoxic, and/or toxic to specific organs (e.g., heart, lungs, kidneys, liver).^1,2 Common HDs include antineoplastic agents (e.g., 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], cyclophosphamide [CP], and ifosfamide [IF]), nucleosides and nucleotides (e.g., ribavirin), immunosuppressive agents (e.g., tacrolimus), disease-modifying antirheumatic agents (e.g., leflunomide), hormone-based therapies (e.g., estradiol), and other non-neoplastic agents.³

HDs pose risks not only to patients receiving them therapeutically but also to the health care personnel who compound, administer, transport, dispose, and/or otherwise handle them.^1,2 Exposure to such drugs can occur through skin and mucosal membrane absorption, inhalation, incidental ingestion, or via needle stick. HD exposure may, in turn, cause adverse effects including skin rashes, infertility, and cancer.^2,4–6

Thus, preventing exposure of health care workers to HDs is of utmost importance for maintaining a safe working environment. This can be achieved through the use of engineering controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and administrative controls.² Closed system transfer devices (CSTDs) are one type of engineering control. These needleless devices allow HD manipulations to occur within a closed system, thus protecting health care workers from undue exposure.

If a CSTD is designed well, manufactured properly, and used appropriately, it should protect health care workers from HD exposure during the compounding and administration of HD products. All CSTD syringe adapters require the use of a syringe, which depending on its design, may compromise the closed nature of a CSTD system. The open barrel of a standard syringe can potentially lead to environmental contamination, and thus danger to health care workers. The extent of contamination possible is dependent on the drug used and its volatility, concentration, viscosity, and affinity for the syringe surface.^7,8

Unlike standard open barrel syringes, sealed barrel CSTD syringe units are designed to provide a completely closed system. The typical use of any HD requires filling a syringe with the drug and transferring it to an intravenous (IV) bag or IV administration line. During the process of drawing a HD from a vial into a syringe, the HD comes into direct contact with the inner wall of the syringe for a period of time. Through this exposure, the HD may adhere to the syringe surface by chemical affinity or cohesive–adhesive forces. After the drug is transferred from the syringe, the inner surface—and any residual HD adhering to the inner surface—becomes exposed to the environment.

Potential contamination of the working environment with the HD may occur by two possible routes: evaporation of the HD or direct contact with the inner wall of the syringe. The latter type of contamination could then be spread to the working environment or health care worker via gloves or direct contact with other surfaces. This method of contamination should be prevented as much as possible and ideally, should not occur during the handling of any HD. Different levels of contamination may be observed with different HDs due to the unique physical and chemical properties of each drug; however, any level of HD contamination is a reason for concern.

Studies using CSTDs in the compounding and administration of HDs have shown a significant reduction in surface contamination levels.^9,10 However, detectable levels of HDs have been observed with the use of some CSTDs. This suggests that some systems are not entirely closed or if the system is closed, there are other ways people can become exposed. Ultimately, health care workers remain at risk of exposure with their use.^10,11 One study using a surface monitoring technique explored environmental contamination via syringe plunger contamination during routine drug preparation in hospital pharmacies.⁷

Contamination by CP on a standard open barrel syringe plunger was confirmed, localized, and quantified. Result from additional studies have confirmed the transfer of CP to a standard syringe plunger.^8,9 In these studies, drug residuals on the syringe plunger contaminated both gloves and the work environment.

The purpose of this study was to quantify HD contamination of the inner surface of standard open barrel syringes and to compare contamination levels between three commonly used HDs: 5-FU, CP, and IF.

2. Methods

Three common HD products were prepared under real world compounding conditions to measure contamination levels of the inner walls of standard open barrel syringes. Using a modified NIOSH performance protocol for CSTDs,¹² a total of 50 mL of drug was transferred from a vial to a 50 mL open barrel syringe, and then from the syringe to an IV bag, using the appropriate vial, syringe, and IV bag CSTD connectors. The drugs evaluated were 5-FU (50 mg/mL), CP (20 mg/mL), and IF (50 mg/mL). Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) PhaSeal^TM CSTDs were used for each of the drug transfer manipulations.

The research team was comprised of a pharmacy school faculty member with extensive cleanroom experience, a pharmacy student with aseptic technique training, and a senior research associate with a doctorate in pharmacy. United States Pharmacopeia General Chapter <800> standards for protecting health care workers from HDs were adhered to throughout the testing (e.g., use of PPE, ventilated hoods, and biosafety cabinets).¹³

ChemoGLOTM HDClean Wipes were used for sampling the inner surfaces of the syringes, and all data were recorded on the ChemoGLOTM Site Map Form.¹⁴ Once completed, the ChemoGLOTM Site Map Forms, along with the correspondin wipe samples, were submitted to the ChemoGLOTM laboratory for analysis (Chapel Hill, North Carolina).

For each test, a CSTD vial adapter was attached to a vial containing the HD being tested, a CSTD bag adapter was attached to an IV bag, and a CSTD syringe adapter was connected to a standard open barrel syringe. The drug was then reconstituted according to the manufacturer’s instructions, if needed (i.e., CP and IF). The syringe was then attached to the vial via the CSTD adapters, and 50 mL of drug was drawn into the syringe. The 50 mL of drug was then injected into the IV bag via the CSTD IV bag adapter. Once each IV bag was prepared, the syringe barrel was tested for the presence of HD contamination.

To test the inner surface of each syringe used, a ChemoGLOTM wipe was used to wipe all four quadrants of the syringe barrel according to the following process:

A quarter from the plunger barrel knob was removed,
allowing for controlled and easy access to the syringe
barrel without interference from the syringe plunger.
This allowed for wiping the exposed inner wall of the
syringe.
A wipe was placed into the open section, and a wooden
rod was used to move the wipe up and down.
The syringe plunger rod was rotated 90 degrees, and the
process was repeated to ensure that the entire syringe
barrel was wiped.
An additional ChemoGLO^TM wipe was used to swab
each syringe quadrant a second time, using the same
method.
Each wipe was then packed and labeled according to the
instructions provided in the sampling kit.

Each test was repeated 15 times for each of the three drugs, for a total of 45 tests. The sample size of 15 syringes was based on sample sizes used in similar studies.^7,8The use of a full 50 mL per injection was also based on previous studies.^7,8

Positive controls for each drug were also tested by inoculating a syringe barrel with the drug, followed by wipe sampling the inner wall of the syringe using the same method described above. No negative controls were tested since the ChemoGLOTM wipe sampling procedure is a validated process that does not require a negative sample.¹⁵

The lower limit of quantitation of the ChemoGLOTM assay is 10.0 ng/ft2 (0.011 ng/cm2) per drug, and the upper limit of quantitation (ULQ) is 4000.0 ng/ft2 (4.31 ng/cm2).¹⁶ The total drug amount found on each syringe tested was determined by adding the amounts from the two wipes used for sampling (wipe 1 plus wipe 2).

Since there were three independent groups of data and the 5-FU and IF data were not normally distributed, a Kruskal–Wallis test using a 0.05 significance level was applied to the ChemoGLOTM test results to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in contamination levels between the three HDs tested. Statistical and, descriptive analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 10.0.2 (232) software.

Results

The results of this study found the inner surfaces of all 45 syringes contaminated with the HD being tested. The average amount of 5-FU detected by the ChemoGLOTM wipe kit for the 15 syringes tested was 1327.7 ng (standard deviation [SD]=873.6 ng). The average amount of CP detected was 1074.8 ng (SD =481.6 ng), and the average concentration of IF detected was 1700.0 ng (SD=1098.1 ng). The positive controls for each drug resulted in measurements exceeding 4000.0 ng each, indicating amounts beyond the test’s ULQ. Based on previous work by Cox et al., the percent recovery of the drug on each surface is estimated to be >95%.¹⁵ See Table 1 for a complete list of the data collected.

The Kruskal–Wallis test performed on the data revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the different drugs’ level of contamination (p=0.14).

Discussion

The results from this study found significant contamination by each of the three drugs on the inner walls of the open barrel syringes. The difference in level of contamination between the three drugs was not statistically significant, highlighting that inner surface contamination by most HDs is likely when open barrel syringes are used during compounding and administration. Any differences that would exist between different HDs would likely be due to the different chemical and physical properties of the drugs —such as their polarity, hydrogen bond donor and acceptor count, and viscosity—and their relative affinity for the syringe surface. A higher SD, as is the case of IF, indicates greater variability in contamination levels.

These findings align with results from other studies. One study that assessed the extent of CP contamination on syringe plungers showed contamination in amounts ranging from 3.7 to 445.7 ng when tested via gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry (GC/MS).⁷ Another study, using ChemoGLOTM wipe test sampling, found CP contamination levels greater than 2000 ng on open barrel syringe plungers and no detectable contamination on sealed barrel syringe plungers after a 50 mL aliquot of CP was drawn into each syringe and injected back into the CP vial multiple times.⁸ The difference in this study’s CP results from these two studies’ results is likely due to the differences in analytical tools used (GC/MS vs. ChemoGLOTM wipe tests), the number of times CP was drawn into each syringe (multiple times vs. once), and/or the sampling techniques used.

One of the limitations of this study was that the positive controls for each drug resulted in measurements of greater than 4000 ng each. Since the ChemoGlo^TM assay has an ULQ of 4000.0 ng, the true amount of drug could not be determined for the controls. The amount of residual drug could have been anywhere from 4000 ng to orders of magnitude more. Therefore, even though the contamination of the syringe barrels from these three drugs can be quantified and compared via this testing method, the full clinical significance of the results cannot be determined by this
study alone.

Additionally, a full 50 mL of drug was drawn into each 50 mL syringe to maximize exposure of the syringe’s inner surface to the drug. This type of usage is not standard compounding practice and may have caused an overestimation of the amount of residual drug that would typically be left on the syringe inner wall during sterile product preparation or administration. Therefore, these results may not be fully generalizable to common compounding practices.

The difference in concentration of the CP solution versus the 5-FU and IF preparations could also have affected the relative amount of drug adhering to the syringe wall. However, the drug preparations used in this study (50 mg/mL for 5-FU, 20 mg/mL for CP, and 50 mg/mL for IF) are standard compounding concentrations, so these results reflect real-world comparisons, enhancing their generalizability.

Finally, only three HDs drugs were tested in this study, allowing for the possibility that additional HDs with different chemical and physical properties could produce different results.

Additional studies are warranted to analyze the extent of contamination after multiple transfers and with extended duration of use, both of which may increase the potential for HD exposure. Understanding the extent of contamination with such use would better reflect the risks associated with real-world compounding practices. Also, further studies examining the extent of transfer of HD from a syringe inner wall to a user’s gloves and compounding working space for these three drugs and other HDs are needed to better understand the extent of risk to health care workers with the use of open barrel syringes.

Conclusion

This study underscores the presence of HD contamination on standard open barrel syringe inner surfaces after transfer of drug from vial to syringe to IV bag. The detected amounts of each the three drugs (5-FU, CP, and IF) on the inner surface of standard open barrel syringes were high (ranging from 1074.8 to 1700.0 ng), especially given that the maximum amount measured (for one sample of IF) exceeded the ULQ set by the ChemoGLO assay at 4000.0 ng. Such levels of drug contamination are of concern since they could be transferred to the working environment and expose health care workers to harm. Identifying ways to limit contamination and exposure is important for the safety of all health care workers who regularly handle HDs.

Authors’ contribution

BTB and SFE conceived the study and were involved in protocol development and data collection. All authors researched literature and performed data analysis. LTA wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

Equashield® provided the funding and proposed the general framework of the study. SFE and LTA have also received funding support from BD, Daiwa Can Company, and Shandong Ande Healthcare Apparatus Co., Ltd. for additional CSTD-related research. SFE is a co-founder of ChemoGLO^TM. The authors declare no additional conflicts of interest.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Equashield®.

ORCID iD

Lori T Armistead https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4680-0156

Preparing a Syringe Pump Setup Using EQUASHIELD Syringe Unit and Connectors

Tamar Apper on August 20, 2024

Preparing an IV Bag Using a Spike Adaptor 180

Tamar Apper on July 18, 2024

Preparing an IV Bag Using an Equashield Spike Adaptor

Ilya Viten on February 13, 2024

Preparing an IV Bag Using an EQUASHIELD Spike Adaptor and IV Tubing Set

Ilya Viten on February 13, 2024

Discover the Financial and Safety Benefits of CSTDs

Tamar Apper on January 24, 2024

Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) play a critical role in protecting the health of pharmacy staff during hazardous drug compounding. Each year, over 8 million healthcare professionals in the US and 12 million in Europe face the risk of exposure to hazardous drugs, a concern that has been extensively studied. ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ CSTDs, with their advanced design, serve as powerful barriers, preventing exposure to dangerous drugs and reducing contamination. They also minimize waste and enhance the well-being of the staff working in hospitals and pharmacies.   

In the following sections, we will explore the significant impact of CSTDs on the compounding process.

The Key Benefits of Using CSTDs in Pharmaceutical Compounding

A closed-system drug transfer device effectively minimizes contamination risks in healthcare settings.

Prioritizing Safety with Closed-System Transfer Devices

Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) have become essential tools in drug compounding for both pharmacists and nurses, in order to address the issue of hazardous drug exposure. According to NIOSH, a CSTD mechanically prohibits the transfer of environmental contaminants into the system and the escape of hazardous drug or vapour concentrations outside the system.⁽³⁾ By creating an airtight connection between drug vials, syringes, and IV bags, they successfully prevent the release of harmful aerosols and vapours, significantly reducing the risks associated with direct contact, skin exposure, and inhalation. ⁽⁴⁾

More Occupational Safety with CSTDs

CSTDs employ various technologies, each offering different levels of safety. Physical barriers establish a closed system, containing hazardous drugs, while air-cleaning technology filters out particles from the air. ⁽⁵⁾ This rigorous containment strategy provides a protective environment for healthcare staff, minimizing the potential long-term health risks associated with hazardous drugs.

Reducing Contamination Risks and Occupational Exposure to Chemotherapy Drugs

One standout benefit of a closed-system drug transfer device is the significant reduction in contamination hazards for healthcare workers. Research shows a substantial decrease in hazardous drug exposure when CSTDs are the preferred medical devices in use, with a contamination rate of 12.24% compared to 26.39% with standard isolators. ⁽⁶⁾ By adopting CSTDs, pharmacists, nurses, clinicians, and other staff can enhance safety measures, creating a safer and more secure healthcare setting.

Contamination Control in Chemotherapy Drug Compounding: CSTDs vs. open systems

In this section, we will compare CSTDs with their market alternatives. We will shed light on their distinctive features and provide guidance on the most suitable choice for various drug-compounding scenarios.

CSTD products

These devices maintain a sealed environment throughout the drug preparation process. Equipped with vial adapters and other components, CSTDs ensure that hazardous drugs are contained, protecting pharmacy staff. Particularly for dangerous drugs, CSTD performance is invaluable, effectively preventing the release of aerosols or vapours.

Open Systems

Open systems possess a degree of permeability due to their inherent lack of a complete seal. They are simpler and often more affordable, making them suitable for drugs with a lower contamination risk. However, their protective capabilities do not match those of CSTDs.

In conclusion, CSTDs offer enhanced protection, especially for hazardous drugs. The choice between CSTDs or alternative solutions should be based on the nature of the drug (hazardous vs non-dangerous), potential staff risks, and regulatory standards, always with a focus on safe and secure compounding. When compounding hazardous drugs one should always use CSTDs as the devices are the only ones able to ensure safety during the process.

The Mastery of Contamination Prevention

In addition to their numerous benefits, CSTDs excel at preventing contamination. Their design provides a dual defence mechanism: they prevent environmental contaminants from entering the system and ensure that hazardous drug particles and vapours are securely sealed within. This robust shield significantly reduces the danger of accidental contamination, setting CSTDs apart in terms of efficiency and protection for healthcare professionals and patients alike.

How do CSTDs prevent drug spills and leakage?

Furthermore, CSTDs offer impeccable protection against drug spills and leakage. They accomplish this through a foolproof mechanism that restricts the entry of environmental contaminants and securely contains hazardous drugs or vapours. Once activated and sealed, the CSTD system prevents any inadvertent entry or exit, including bacteria or particulate matter. This level of precision safeguards the compounding process from unintended breaches, highlighting the unparalleled capability of CSTDs in ensuring the integrity of drug handling.

The Financial Benefits of Transfer Devices with Closed Systems

In the world of healthcare, financial considerations are just as important as security. That’s why we’re taking a closer look at the economic advantages of CSTDs. This section explores how CSTDs save money and reduce waste, highlighting the long-term financial benefits of investing in these devices in the healthcare sector.

Using a Drug Transfer Device Enables Cost Savings through Waste Reduction

Using CSTDs offers significant cost savings by minimizing drug waste. By providing protection against microbial growth, the use of the vial can be extended, allowing for longer periods of use beyond the original expiration date. Studies show that implementing CSTDs reduces drug waste by an average of 72.5%. ⁽⁷⁾  This not only conserves valuable medications but also has a positive environmental impact by reducing the disposal of hazardous drugs.

Optimizing Drug Compounding with CSTDs

Efficiency studies have demonstrated that the closed systems extend the sterility of single-use vials, enabling the practice of vial sharing which significantly cuts down the volume of drugs thrown away after just one use. Remarkably, studies highlighted that CSTDs can preserve vial sterility for as much as seven days, with contamination rates remaining negligible up to 30 days, leading to considerable financial savings due to reduced drug wastage ^(8).

These devices not only ensure precision in medication measurement and dispensing, leaving minimal residue, but their design also prevents any medication leaks and drips, maximizing every drop. The controlled air pressure and accurate dosing provided by CSTDs also play a crucial role in averting the risks associated with overfilling or underfilling vials, which further trims down waste. Such efficiency has been shown to provide substantial economic benefits. Cost savings from integrating CSTDs into healthcare practices range from 7-15% on overall drug and device expenses. This can translate into annual savings of around £480,000 by recovering an average of 57% of unused drugs from vials, with Hungarian hospitals reporting noteworthy savings, particularly with costly parenteral biological agents ⁽⁹⁾. Collectively, CSTDs make a compelling case not only for their role in reducing drug waste but also for optimizing healthcare resources through their economic use.

Enhancing Results by Integrating CSTDs with DVO

Combining CSTDs with Drug Vial Optimization (DVO) techniques provides a comprehensive approach to protection and efficiency. While CSTDs ensure a secure drug-handling environment, DVO maximizes medication extraction from vials with minimal residue. This combination not only protects healthcare professionals but also offers long-term financial benefits, establishing a sustainable and cost-effective solution for patient care and financial health.

Factors that influence the vial savings when compounding hazardous drugs with CSTDs and DVOs

Calculating vial savings during the preparation of cytostatic drugs with CSTDs and Drug Vial Optimization (DVO) depends on multiple variables, such as the drug specifics, equipment, and compounding procedures. Key considerations include:

Drug concentration: Higher concentrations may yield more doses per vial, enhancing DVO savings.

Vial size: Bigger vials could result in more savings by optimizing usage.

Vial cost: Selecting vials should be cost-effective, balancing the price per millilitre with potential waste.

Shelf life: Consider the drug’s stability post-mixing to prevent waste from expiring drugs.

Compounding efficiency: Properly trained staff using CSTDs and DVO can minimize errors and waste.

Regulatory adherence: Comply with all regulations to ensure safe compounding practices.

Demand analysis: High demand for a drug could mean significant savings through vial optimization.

DVO efficiency: The efficacy of the DVO technology used affects the amount of extractable doses.

Drug properties: Consider the compounding impact of drug characteristics like viscosity and solubility.

Staff education: Skilled staff using CSTDs and DVO technology can maximize their well-being at the workplace while increasing cost savings.

Long-Term Cost Savings: CSTDs vs. Alternative Solutions

In addition to the economic and sterility benefits presented earlier, CSTDs address also the financial consequences of contamination in healthcare settings. Exposure to hazardous drugs poses risks to healthcare professionals and patients, resulting in significant financial strains. These strains include costs associated with potential medical expenses due to staff harm, and the management of contamination fallout. Using CSTDs in drug compounding provides a key solution for such issues and ensures financial profitability in the long term.

The Ripple Effect: The Costs and Consequences of Staff Exposure to Hazardous Drugs

Human errors in healthcare settings can have detrimental effects on staff, leading to a series of costly repercussions. Immediate expenses include medical treatment, testing for exposure to hazardous drugs, and time off work. Furthermore, staff illnesses can result in workforce shortages, requiring the need for temporary hires and additional expenses. These issues disrupt operations and drive up costs. Additionally, if patients are adversely affected, legal and compensation expenses may arise. Given these financial strains, it is crucial to implement preventive strategies to address the broad impact of staff exposure incidents. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Mitigating Contamination Costs with CSTDs: A Proactive Approach

By using Closed-System Drug-Transfer Devices (CSTDs) to ensure a sealed environment during drug preparation and administration, the risk of staff contamination can be significantly reduced. This helps minimize immediate medical expenses related to exposure treatments, prevents operational disruptions, and eliminates the likelihood of legal and compensation claims. Implementing CSTDs demonstrates a proactive commitment to healthcare safety, protecting the well-being of healthcare professionals while also ensuring cost-effectiveness in operations.

Maximising Your CSTD Return on Investment by Investing in Staff Education

Investing in staff education for the proper use of Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) is paramount in the healthcare sector, both for ensuring safety and enhancing financial outcomes. Effective training equips staff with the necessary skills to operate, maintain, and create efficient protocols for CSTDs, leading to fewer errors, reduced contamination risks, and improved chemotherapy administration. This not only advances patient care and satisfaction but also significantly increases return on investment (ROI) by minimizing costly mistakes such as drug spillage and avoiding needlestick injuries, which can cost between £10,000 to £620,000 alone, according to a report in Scotland.⁽¹¹⁾Hence, comprehensive training is a strategic investment that yields long-term financial benefits by optimizing medication use and reducing healthcare risks. Equashield provides free training for all healthcare professionals interested in improving occupational safety and well-being in hospitals and pharmacy environments.

Choosing the Right CSTD: Factors to Consider

Selecting the appropriate CSTD is not as simple as choosing any other item. Comparing CSTDs in a real-world setting requires thorough education for all staff involved in testing. Here are the key aspects to consider when selecting a CSTD:

Safety: When it comes to handling hazardous drugs, the safety of healthcare personnel is the top priority. Utilizing a completely closed CSTD is crucial to provide the utmost level of protection against the risks linked to exposure and contamination.

Compatibility: Ensure the CSTD is compatible with all tubing and pump equipment used in your facility.

Effectiveness: Evaluate the device’s ability to prevent work environment contamination and exposure to high vapour concentrations when disconnecting IV tubing after infusion.

Ease of use: Choose a device that is user-friendly and does not require extensive training.

Cost: Consider the device’s total cost of ownership and its fit within your facility’s budget.

Reliability: Select a device with a proven track record of success and reliability. Those designed with the closed-back syringe tend to be the safest and show the highest CSTD performance.

Ensuring Compatibility with Existing Regulations and Protocols

Before integrating a Closed System Transfer Device (CSTD) into your healthcare facility, it is crucial to ensure it aligns seamlessly with your country’s existing protocols and regulations. Different regions may have specific guidelines for medication safe handling and increased risk exposure. Verify that the chosen CSTD meets the regulatory requirements and healthcare protocols in your area. This step is vital for maintaining compliance, enhancing patient safety, and streamlining your drug transfer processes.

About

Order