Background: With advances in hospital automation, selecting an automated compounding device (ACD) for compounding parenteral nutrition (PN) may be challenging. A well-designed comparative review that considers safety and technical standards could assist in the selection process. United States Pharmacopeia chapter <797> and The American Society of Hospital Pharmacists (ASHP) has provided guidance on the safety and accuracy of ACDs. Objective: Utilizing a checklist of technical and performance specifications investigators sought to assess the adequacy of compounders available in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Method: Investigators compared the NutriMiX KS-240 and the Exactamix EM 2400. A literature review of practice standards, safety, technical, and performance specifications was conducted. These were developed into a checklist of 46 technical and performance specifications. Investigators evaluated each ACD using the checklist. Results: It was found that 43 (93.48%) of the technical and performance specifications, required by the hospital, were met by the NutriMix KS-240, while 39 (84.78%) were met by Exactamix EM 2400. Conclusion: This review found that although ACDs comply with the majority of standards and specifications, software integration with the hospital information system may be a limiting factor in selecting an ACD. The investigators concluded that the NutriMiX KS- 240 matches the technical and performance specifications for automated compounders required by our institution.
AlomiYAAljudaibiSM.National survey of total parenteral nutrition practice in Saudi Arabia: dispensing and administration at MOH Hospitals. EC Nutr. 2016;3(6):748-756.
2.
United States Pharmacopeial Convention Inc. Chapter <797> Pharmaceutical compounding-sterile preparations. Revision Bulletin. Rockville, MD: US Pharmacopeial Convention; 2008:1-61.
3.
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on the safe use of automated compounding devices for the preparation of parenteral nutrition admixtures. Developed through the ASHP Council on Professional Affairs and approved by the ASHP Board of Directors on April 27, 2000. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2000;57(14):1343-1348.
4.
BoullataJIHolcombeBSacksG, et al. Standardized competencies for parenteral nutrition order review and parenteral nutrition preparation, including compounding: the ASPEN model. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016;31(4):548-555.
5.
CohenMR.Safe practices for compounding of parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36:14S-19S.
6.
BoullataJI.Overview of the parenteral nutrition use process. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36:10S-13S.
7.
BoullataJIGuenterPMirtalloJM.A parenteral nutrition use survey with gap analysis. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2013;37(2):212-222.
8.
BonnabryPCingriaLSadeghipourFIngHFonzo-ChristeCPfisterRE.Use of a systematic risk analysis method to improve safety in the production of paediatric parenteral nutrition solutions. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(2):93-98.
