The presence of contamination in the healthcare work environment by one of the types of hazardous drugs, cytostatics, has been found in multiple international studies. Recent studies and guidelines recommend surface monitoring for risk assessment of healthcare professionals’ exposure. The availability of detection techniques is critical to successfully carry out this type of monitoring. The use of new semi-quantitative techniques allows quicker results. The main objective of this study was to determine the existence of hazardous drugs on the working surfaces in different locations of a tertiary hospital using the BD HD Check® semi-quantitative device. The presence of methotrexate, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide was analysed at 80, 89 and 82 locations in 10, 13 and 11 clinical units, respectively. A total of 251 samples were analysed. The monitoring results were positive for 13.1% of the analysed samples, with 36.3% of the methotrexate samples, 0% of the doxorubicin samples and 4.9% of the cyclophosphamide samples. Mapping the presence of HD in our hospital has allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of controls established in the hospital to minimise the exposure of healthcare professionals to hazardous drugs. The speed in obtaining results has enabled immediate corrective actions in cases where contaminated surfaces were detected.
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic and hazardous drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm1990; 47: 1033–1049.
2.
BurroughsGConnorTMcDiarmidM. NIOSH alert: preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ No. 2004-165.
ValanisBGVollmerWMLabuhnKT, et al.Association of antineoplastic drug handling with acute adverse effects in pharmacy personnel. Am J Hosp Pharm1993; 50: 455–462.
ValanisBVollmerWMSteeleP. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents: self-reported miscarriages and stillbirths among nurses and pharmacists. J Occup Environ Med1999; 41: 632–638.
7.
McDiarmidMAOliverMSRothTS, et al.Chromosome 5 and 7 abnormalities in oncology personnel handling anticancer drugs. J Occup Environ Med2010; 52: 1028–1034.
8.
ConnorTHLawsonCCPolovishM, et al.Reproductive health risks associated with occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs in health care settings. J Occup Environ Med2014; 56: 901–910. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000249.
9.
DranitsarisGJonhstonMPoirierS, et al.Are health care providers who work with cancer drugs at an increased risk for toxic events? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Oncol Pharm Pract2005; 11: 69–78. doi:10.1191/1078155205jp155oa.
10.
El-EbiaryAAAbuelfadlAASarhanNI. Evaluation of genotoxicity included by exposure to antineoplàstic drugs in lymphocytes of oncology nurses and pharmacists. J Appl Toxicol2013; 33: 196–201.
11.
SenssinkPJMKroeseEDvan KranenHJ, et al.Cancer risk assessment for health care workers occupationally exposed to cyclophosphamide. Intern Arch Occup Environ Health1995; 67: 317–323.
12.
General Office of the Basic Portfolio of SNS (Sistema Nacional de Salud [National Health System]) and Pharmacy Services. General Subdepartment of Drug and Medical Device Quality. Good practice guide for drug preparation in hospital pharmacy services,https://www.sefh.es/sefhpdfs/GuiaBPP_JUNIO_2014_VF.pdf (2014, accessed March 2021).
NIOSH. NIOSH list of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings, 2016. By Connor TH, MacKenzie BA, DeBord DG, et al. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2016-161 (Supersedes 2014-138), 2016.
20.
SessinkPTrahanJCoyneJ. Reduction in surface contamination with cyclophosphamide in 30 US hospital pharmacies following implementation of a closed-system drug transfer device. Hosp Pharm2013; 48: 204–212.
21.
RolandCCaronNBussièresJF. Multicenter study of environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and methotrexate in 66 Canadian hospitals: a 2016 follow-up study. J Occup Environ Hyg2017; 14: 661–669.
22.
CrulMSimons-SandersK. Carry-over of antineoplastic drug contamination in Dutch hospital pharmacies. J Oncol Pharm Pract2018; 24: 483–489.
23.
RedicKAFangKChristenC,et al.Surface contamination of hazardous drug pharmacy storage bins and pharmacy distributor shipping containers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2018; 24: 91–97.
24.
ViegasSPáduaMVeigaAC, et al.Antineoplastic drugs contamination of workplace surfaces in two Portuguese hospitals. Environ Monit Assess2014; 186: 7807–7818.
25.
SottaniCGrignaniEOddoneE, et al.Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs in Italian hospitals: performance-based hygienic guidance values (HGVs) project. Ann Work Expo Health2017; 61: 994–1002.
26.
ÁlvarezAGSoriaMAL-MMaríAA, et al.Exposure to cytotoxic drugs in healthcare workers. Farm Hosp2012; 36: 368–373.
27.
Valero-GarcíaSPoveda-AndrésJL. Hazardous drugs levels in compounding area surfaces of hospital pharmacies services: multicentric study. Farm Hosp2018; 42: 152–158.
28.
ConnorTHZockMDSnowAH. Surface wipe sampling for antineoplastic (chemotherapy) and other hazardous drug residue in healthcare settings: methodology and recommendations. J Occup Environ Hyg2016; 13: 658–667.
29.
ConnorHTSmithJP. New approaches to wipe sampling methods for antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings. Pharm Technol Hosp Pharm2016; 1: 107–114.
30.
Becton, Dickinson and Company. BD HD check system: quick reference guide. Technical Report series: 1000029255602, 2019. Fraklin Lakes, USA: HD.
31.
HedmerMGeorgiadiARämme BrembergE, et al. Surface contamination of cyclophosphamide packaging and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in a hospital pharmacy in Sweden. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 629–637.
32.
ChauchatLTanguayCCaronNJ, et al.Surface contamination with ten antineoplastic drugs in 83 Canadian centers. J Oncol Pharm Pract2019; 25: 1089–1098.
33.
PalaminiMGagnéSCaronN, et al.Cross-sectional evaluation of surface contamination with 9 antineoplastic drugs in 93 Canadian healthcare centers: 2019 results. J Oncol Pharm Pract2020; 26: 1921–1930.
34.
OdraskaPDolezalovaLKutaJ, et al.Association of surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs with different working conditions in hospital pharmacies. Arch Environ Occup Health2014; 69: 148–158.
35.
SchmausGSchierlRFunckS. Monitoring surface contamination by antineoplastic drugs using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and voltammetry. Am J Health Syst Pharm2002; 59: 956–961.
36.
SalchSAZamboniWCZamboniBA,et al.Patterns and characteristics associated with surface contamination of hazardous drugs in hospital pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm2019; 76: 591–598.
37.
MariePChristopheCManonR, et al.Environmental monitoring by surface sampling for cytotoxics: a review. Environ Monit Assess2017; 189: 52.
38.
ValeroSVilaNLópez BrizE, et al.Implementation of a safe circuit for the comprehensive management of hazardous drugs in a third-level hospital. Rev OFIL2018; 28: 15–21.
39.
ValeroSLópez-BrizEVilaN, et al.Pre and post intervention study of antiblastic drugs contamination surface levels at a pharmacy department compouding [sic: compounding] area using a closed system drug transfer device and a decontamination process. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol2018; 95: 1–7.
40.
ValeroSVilaNFornesV, et al.Use and handling safety of Mini-Spike2® chemo and puresite for safe chemotherapy compounding in a hospital pharmacy. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol2018; 100: 1–6.
