Characterization of education,technical practices and attitudes of Portuguese pharmacy technicians towards manipulation of cytotoxic drugs

Abstract

Pharmacy professionals that manipulate cytotoxic drugs need to undergo educational programs, adopt the most convenient practices, and use appropriate equipment to avoid, as far as possible, occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs. The main goal of this work is to characterize the education, technical practices, and attitudes towards cytotoxic drugs, of Portuguese pharmacy technicians. A questionnaire comprising eleven questions deemed pertinent was elaborated and subsequently validated by a pilot test. The anonymous, web-based survey was conducted between December 2022 and January 2023, by graduated pharmacy technicians that had manipulated cytotoxic drugs between 2017 and 2022. A total of 77 pharmacy technicians responded to the survey. Although sixty-six pharmacy technicians (86%) had been trained before beginning to manipulate cytotoxic drugs, the promotion of regular post-admission training by the institutions is sparse – only assumed by 53% of the pharmacy technicians (n = 41). All participants reported using gloves and gown during manipulation and the use of double gloves was common (99%; n = 76). Compliances with the recommended limit time for uninterrupted manipulation activity (82%; n = 63) and systematic double-checking (86%; n = 66) were high, but the regular use of sterile gauze around syringe connection sites 58% (n = 45), was less frequent. None of the surveyed pharmacy technicians used closed-system transfer devices (CSTD) and 41 (53%) of those who used spikes did not thoughtfully use these devices. The implementation of regular training programs in manipulating cytotoxic drugs should be fostered, to promote the more judicious use of engineering controls and transversal adoption of the safest technical practices.

Keywords

Cytotoxic chemotherapy antineoplastic agents occupational exposure pharmacy technicians

Introduction

In 2020, the worldwide incidence of cancer exceeded 19 million new cases and the absolute prevalence surpassed 50 million cases. By 2040, the incidence is projected to increase to 30 million new cases, thus accentuating the trend of increasing cancer patients.¹ Despite the emergence of new approaches for cancer treatment, such as biological molecules and immune-mediated therapies, chemotherapy remains the most widely used treatment.² It is foreseeable that more and more qualified professionals in pharmacy will be needed to ensure the treatment of cancer patients, through the preparation of solutions containing cytotoxic drugs.

In the 1970s, the possibility of serious occupational risks in healthcare professionals working with antineoplastic drugs began to be admitted.^3,4 Since then, several studies have already demonstrated serious adverse effects of mutagenic nature, reproductive toxic effects, and secondary cancer among healthcare workers exposed to cytotoxic drugs.^5–9 Even if exposed to trace amounts, the exposure of professionals is repetitive, thus resulting in cumulative toxicity with potentially serious consequences.¹⁰ Several studies have used the analysis of urinary samples from professionals to identify and quantify the cytotoxic agents present in this biological marker of exposure. Some studies reported the presence of several cytotoxic drugs in urine samples from exposed professionals, such as cyclophosphamide in pharmacists,^11,12 pharmacy technicians^11–14 and nurses;^11,12,15 methotrexate, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and cisplatin in pharmacy technicians;¹⁴ and 5-fluorouracil, paclitaxel and anthracyclines in pharmacy technicians.¹³ On the other hand, there are also studies reporting minimal or no urinary levels of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in samples from pharmacy technicians, pharmacists and nurses.¹⁶ The observed differences, despite using similar sampling and analytical methodologies, suggest that there is indeed variability in exposure to cytotoxic agents in different work settings. Disparities in the handling technique of cytotoxic drugs and differences in the use of personnel protective equipment (PPE) are among the main reasons for variability.¹¹

Since the contamination of professionals working with cytotoxic drugs can be affected by the manipulation technique and the compliance with the correct use of PPE, the adequate training of the staff involved in the process of handling drugs is of the greatest importance.¹⁷ Particularly among nurses, prior studies described the training programs that professionals who handled cytotoxics had attended as well as their compliance with guidelines regarding several aspects (use of PPE, use of biological safety cabinets (BSC), etc.).^10,18–30 Nevertheless, the description of the practices and attitudes of pharmacy technicians in this regard has been less common.

The main goal of this work is to characterize the education, technical practices, and attitudes towards cytotoxic drugs, adopted by Portuguese pharmacy technicians that manipulate cytotoxic drugs, and to conclude on the fulfilment of the recommendations provided by guidelines.

Methods

To perform this observational cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was elaborated to be responded to by pharmacy technicians.

Given the main objectives of this research, the questionnaire conceptual framework was developed considering the dependent variable “Training on Cytotoxic Drugs Manipulation and Adopted Procedures by Pharmacy Technicians” as potentially affected by the independent variables (i) training prior admission in cytotoxic drugs manipulation; (ii) periodical education and evaluation promoted by the employer; (iii) use of PPE; (iv) practices and attitudes towards cytotoxic drugs manipulation; (v) use of engineering controls; (vi) major concerns and difficulties of pharmacy technicians that manipulate cytotoxics.

To ensure that any questions beyond the scope of the research were excluded, the questionnaire was reviewed by two experts in the field of cytotoxic drug handling concerning the relevance of all questions. Eleven questions were deemed relevant. Providing succinct questionnaires is associated with increased participants’ adherence.³¹

Then, the questionnaire was validated by a pilot test that aimed to verify if the questions were correctly formulated and written in a comprehensive manner for the target population. Accordingly, the pilot test was answered by eleven pharmacy technicians. By asking the potential respondents to answer the questionnaire, it was possible to clarify dubious questions, include available options for each question as exhaustive as possible and detect flaws in the questionnaire in terms of content, grammar, and format.

The questionnaire mainly included close-ended questions, since, for most questions, the range of answers was well-known, and the options were limited. Still, an open-ended question was included to allow the respondents to express their opinions freely, regarding the major concerns and difficulties that pharmacy technicians experience in handling cytotoxics. The answers were grouped into categories, according to their similarity.

In questions that involved assessing habits, Likert scales were considered, since it is acknowledged that it provides a more reliable measure of strength for a particular attitude or belief than ambiguous terms alone.³¹

The anonymous, web-based survey was conducted between December 10, 2022, and January 31, 2023. The questionnaire was prepared on the Google Forms platform and was disseminated on social network pages of pharmacy professional groups, ensuring free and expressly voluntary access to all the public that they reach.

Handling cytotoxic drugs between 2017 and 2022; working in Portuguese Hospital Units; being a graduated pharmacy technician; and voluntarily responding to the questionnaire; were considered inclusion criteria.

Given the predicted restricted number of eligible respondents, the questionnaire had no personnel or demographic questions. Although demographic characterization of the study population could be interesting, it was decided to forego this data at the expense of guaranteeing the anonymity of the participants.

The relevance of most of the questions included in the present survey is corroborated by previous studies in which the use of PPE, use of BSC, frequency of educational programs, and use of puncturing devices alternatives to needles were addressed to evaluate the adherence to safe handling practices of cytotoxic drugs.^{18,21,27,29,32}

Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, version 365, enabling the presentation of simple frequencies and prevalences.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Escola Superior de Saúde do Instituto Politécnico do Porto (Document approved no. CE0093C).

Results

The few existent studies that characterized the practices and education of pharmacy technicians surveyed 24 professionals from Canada^32,33 and 183 pharmacy practitioners (sum of pharmacy technicians and pharmaceutics; the number of pharmacy technicians was not revealed) from the USA.³⁴ In the present study, a total of 77 pharmacy technicians responded to the survey, featuring the training, practices, and attitudes towards cytotoxic drugs, in a European country (Portugal).

Training in the manipulation of cytotoxic drugs

In the present study, a total of 66 pharmacy technicians (86%) had performed training before starting to manipulate cytotoxic drugs. The remaining 14% (n = 11) admitted having started manipulating cytotoxics without prior training. In a study of 253 nurses involved in the preparation of cytotoxic drugs, 29.6% of the professionals had received training before admittance.¹⁹ Similar results were observed in a study in which 22.2% of the pharmacists surveyed (n = 27), had received training before handling cytotoxic drugs.²⁰ There are also health professionals involved in the preparation of cytotoxic drugs who revealed that they had not received any prior training.³⁵ In institutions where training and assessment are not carried out, health professionals involved in the handling of cytotoxic drugs assume that training before admission should always be mandatory, being considered one of the main justifications that limit the safety of handling those agents.¹⁰ Although the performance of prior training is superior in this survey, an increasing tendency to train newly recruited professionals to handle cytotoxics should be aimed, to reach the desirable 100%, in future surveys. According to several guidelines, such as ISOPP,³⁶ OSHA,³⁷ and ESOP,³⁸ the training of pharmacy professionals that manipulate cytotoxic drugs before admission is mandatory.

The training and assessment of professionals dedicated to the manipulation of cytotoxic agents should also be performed regularly, after admission. According to the ISOPP guidelines, the training should be repeated, at least, every 2–3 years and assessment should be performed yearly.³⁶ Several other guidelines corroborate the need for regular training and assessment.^37,39–41 Still, the involvement of employing institutions in providing regular training for professionals handling cytotoxic drugs has often been portrayed as scarce or non-existent.^10,21,35 The results observed in the present study regarding the participation of the employing institutions confirm that in the studied population, there is also little investment in regular training and assessment of pharmacy technicians after their enrolment in handling cytotoxic drugs. Forty-one participants (53%) stated that the employer had no participation in their training at any level and only eleven (14%) recognized that the employer enquires them about performed training. The main contribution of the employers in regular training of the professionals is the dissemination of training courses carried out by third parties (n = 14, 18%) (Figure 1). This might be worrisome since lack of training was already pointed out by professionals as the main cause of the spills and accidents that occurred during cytotoxic handling.¹⁹ Using linear regression models, it was concluded that differences in urinary concentrations of cyclophosphamide in exposed professionals were associated in a statistically significant manner with the absence of cytotoxic handling training.¹¹

Personnel protective equipment (PPE)

Latex, nitrile, or neoprene gloves may be used for the manipulation of cytotoxic drugs if they have been validated for that purpose.³⁶ All participants (n = 77) reported using gloves and gowns during cytotoxics manipulation (Table 1). A percentage of 92% of pharmacy technicians used nitrile gloves (n = 71), 78% used latex gloves and most of them (73%, n = 56), used both latex and nitrile gloves. Although described by a small percentage of professionals (4%; n = 3) the use of vinyl gloves should be discouraged (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Type of participation of the employing institutions of pharmacy technicians (n = 77) in specific training in the handling of cytotoxic drugs, after the professional had started to perform this task.

Figure 2.

Rates of use of overshoes, head and hair covers, masks and gloves, according to particular characteristics.

Table 1.

Rates and absolute frequencies of regular use of personnel protective equipment by pharmacy technicians (n = 77), during the manipulation of cytotoxic drugs.

Gloves	Gown	Mask	Head Cover	Overshoes	Scrubs	Specific Shoes	Protective Goggles
100% (n = 77)	100% (n = 77)	99% (n = 76)	94% (n = 72)	94% (n = 72)	95% (n = 73)	82% (n = 63)	25% (n = 19)

The self-reported adherence to gown and glove use in this study is among the highest ever described. In the various previously published papers, glove and gown use during reconstitution and preparation of cytotoxic drugs ranged between 49% and 99% for gloves and between 3% and 91% for gowns (respective gloves and gown adherence: 49% and 3% (n = 33),²² 76% and 36% (n = 632),²⁴ 92% and 63% (n = 1932),²³ 90% and 44% (n = 83),²⁵ 91% and 21% (n = 824),²⁶ 99% and 53% (n = 263),²⁷ 95% and 85% (n = 88),²⁸ 98% and 91% (n = 222)²⁹ and 90% and 80% (n = 183)).³⁴

Double-gloving was described by 99% of the participants (n = 76) (Figure 2), complying with the recommendations of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists,⁴² which highlights the fact that wearing double gloves provides an additional barrier to possible contamination transfer as the hands are covered until the last item of PPE is removed. The use of two pairs of gloves when preparing cytotoxic drugs has been variable among different studies, with studies showing that all participants used two pairs of gloves,²⁰ studies in which about 50% of the professionals used two pairs of gloves (n = 183),³⁴ and studies in which the practice proved to be very rare or non-existent.¹⁰

Regarding the use of masks, 76 pharmacy technicians (99%) reported the use of either a P2 mask (n = 16; 21%) or a P3 mask (n = 60; 78%), both described as adequate by the ISOPP guidelines.³⁶ Previous studies reported lower adherence to the use of masks at 47% (n = 222).²⁹

Both head and hair covers and overshoes were used by 72 pharmacy technicians (94%). According to USP,⁴³ these items protect from contact with hazardous drug residues and should be used. The use of a second shoe cover to be removed when exiting the hazardous drug compounding area is recommended, thereby limiting the contamination of other areas adjacent to the cleanroom.^36,43 Only 25 pharmacy technicians (32%) included in this survey usually used double shoe covers.

Practices and attitudes towards manipulation of cytotoxic drugs

To maintain the concentration of the staff involved in the preparation of cytotoxic drugs, it is recommended that no more than 120 min be spent working at the BSC or isolator, without a break.³⁶ Although most of the participants of the survey reported spending 120 min or less working without a break (n = 62, 81%), 18% of the pharmacy technicians (n = 14), admitted exceeding this time (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Time of consecutive manipulation of cytotoxic drugs without a break.

Several references recommend that sterile gauze should be placed around syringe connection sites.^29,37,44 In the present study, most participants admitted to always complying with this recommendation (n = 45, 58%), but one participant admitted that he never did it and 15 (19%) admitted that they rarely did it (Table 2). The use of sterile gauze around syringe connection sites might be crucial to absorb spills and leakages, thus diminishing exposure. The simulation of cytotoxic drug manipulation with fluorescence substances such as quinine hydrochloride suggested that syringe connection sites are areas particularly prone to spills, evidencing the importance of placing a sterile gauze around syringe connections.^45,46

Table 2.

Rates and absolute frequencies of use of sterile gauze around syringe connection sites and performance of double checking by another professional during withdrawing and injecting drugs.

Use of sterile gauze around syringe connection sites				Double-checking during withdrawing and injecting drugs
1 (Never)	2 (Rarely)	3 (Often)	4 (Every time)	1 (Never)	2 (Rarely)	3 (Often)	4 (Every time)
1% (n = 1)	19% (n = 15)	21% (n = 16)	58% (n = 45)	5% (n = 4)	3% (n = 2)	6% (n = 5)	86% (n = 66)

ISOPP states that double-checking during withdrawing and injecting drugs should be implemented. In the present study, most of the participants stated that the drugs that they prepared are always double-checked (n = 66, 86%). Still, four pharmacy technicians (5%) reported that theirs never are (Table 2). Training programs should highlight the benefits of increasing the accuracy of the preparations by systematically adopting the double-checking methodology.

Participants were asked to indicate the three drugs they handled the most (in terms of total mass), according to their records of manipulation. Paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide and 5-fluorouracil were the three most manipulated drugs and 14 pharmacy technicians (18%) acknowledged that, unlike recommended,³⁸ they did not perform these records. Eight of the professionals (10%) did not have access to the records of manipulated drugs, although they stated that they were performed (Figure 4).

Engineering controls

Regarding containment primary engineering controls (C-PECs) used in the manipulation of cytotoxics, 46 participants reported using C-PECs recognized by guidelines as adequate for manipulating all cytotoxic drugs³⁶ – class II B2 BSC was pointed out by 44 participants (57%) and negative pressure restricted access barrier systems (RABS) or compounding aseptic containment isolator (CACI) was used by two participants (3%). Six participants (8%) reported using a Class I BSC, which must not be used for sterile products, and five participants (6%), chose the option “Class II Type B1” which is only suitable for minimal quantities of volatile cytotoxic drugs.³⁶ Twenty pharmacy technicians, corresponding to 26% of the surveyed professionals, admitted that they did not know the classification of the C-PEC where they worked or had recently worked (Figure 5). Acknowledging the classification of the C-PEC, its basic functioning and features are essential to safely manipulate cytotoxic drugs. Accordingly, ISOPP states that the “Theory of containment devices and barriers” is one of the elements that should be contained in training programs for professionals working with those devices.

Figure 4.

Drugs most manipulated by pharmacy technicians according to total mass recorded in the file of the manipulated drugs by each professional.

Figure 5.

Containment primary engineering controls (C-PEC) used by pharmacy technicians in their hospital units (CACI = compounding aseptic containment isolator; RABS = restricted access barrier systems).

Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of closed-system transfer devices (CSTD) in reducing surface contamination.^47–52 The few existing publications on adherence to the use of CSTD in cytotoxic handling reveal that they have not yet been adopted on a recurrent basis. In a study including 120 Canadian healthcare professionals who contacted cytotoxics in different functions (including in preparation), none of the participants used CSTD.³³ Boiano, Steege²¹ revealed rates of “frequent use” of CSTD of 45%, while “never use” was answered by 47% of the respondents and “occasional use” gathered 8% of the responses (n = 1895). The main justifications presented for the low adherence to CSTD are the cost of the devices and the lack of training in their use. On the other hand, the use of withdrawal spikes, which are needleless systems, seems to occur more regularly (with 90% of the participants stating that they “Always” used them) (n = 1925).²¹ As with CSTD, spikes decrease the risk of accidental punctures and help to balance the pressure inside the vials.^21,37 The main difference is that, unlike common withdrawal spikes, CSTD also prevent the escape of hazardous drug or vapor concentrations outside the system, enhancing the prevention of exposure.³⁶ Nevertheless, drugs and device specifications should be carefully read before using these alternatives to needles, since some drugs preclude the use of some devices in their summary of product characteristics (SmPC). In the present study, none of the participants used CSTD. On the other hand, all participants admitted to using spikes, to some extent. Still, their criterion for using spikes seems to be, in some cases, unclear. Three participants (4%) assumed using spikes regardless of drug characteristics described in SmPC and 38 participants (49%) reported using spikes whenever recommended by the SmPC. However, when analyzing the SmPC of all cytotoxic drugs commercialized in Portugal in January of 2023, it was possible to verify that none of the SmPC recommends the use of spike. These results suggest that the use of the spike, by some pharmacy technicians, may not be exactly judicious. The remaining 36 pharmacy technicians (47%), have provided an acceptable justification, stating that they “used spike unless contra-indicated in SmPC”.

Major concerns and difficulties of pharmacy technicians that manipulate cytotoxics

Pharmacy technicians that participated in this study had the opportunity to express their major concerns and difficulties when manipulating cytotoxics, in an open-ended question. Twenty-nine participants shared a total of 41 concerns and difficulties that could be categorized into nine different groups. Excessive workload (n = 7) and insufficient human resources (n = 7) were the most frequent answers, followed by insufficient training (n = 6) and future health consequences of the performed tasks (exposure to cytotoxic drugs and routine movements) (n = 6) (Table 3). These results further emphasize the need for the education and training of more professionals that are conveniently prepared to manipulate cytotoxic drugs, adopt safer procedures, and enable a higher rotation of professionals.

Table 3.

Concerns and/or difficulties expressed by pharmacy technicians that manipulate cytotoxic drugs.

Concern/Difficulty	n
Excessive workload	7
Insufficient human resources	7
Insufficient training	6
Future health consequences of the performed tasks	6
Inadequate physical conditions	5
Technical difficulties during the manipulation itself/task demand	4
Lack of material or poor quality of material	3
Lack of clinical monitoring	2
Lack of standardisation of recommendations	1

Conclusion

In the present survey, it was possible to verify that Portuguese pharmacy technicians generally receive training before their admission in the manipulation of cytotoxic drugs. It was also possible to testify the generic overall adoption use of most critical PPE items – gloves (in duplicate), gown, and mask. In fact, regarding both prior training and PPE use, the surveyed professionals have demonstrated higher levels of adherence to recommendations than most of the previously studied populations. However, the participation of the employing institutions in regular training and assessment of their professionals, after admission in manipulating cytotoxic drugs, is frequently unsatisfactory. Training programs should encourage more frequent use of sterile gauze around syringe connections, double checking procedures of the preparations, maximum time of manipulation without a break of 120 min and a more profound knowledge, with subsequent more judicious use of engineering controls. The concerns of pharmacy technicians should not be disregarded. Accordingly, the implementation of more and more frequent education and training programs to better prepare more pharmacy technicians in manipulating cytotoxic drugs might contribute to a decrease in the reported excessive workload.

FM conceived the study. DC, IS, MR, PC, and FM were involved in gaining ethical approval. DC, IS and MR developed the web-based survey. FM corrected the web-based survey according to experts’ opinions and following the pilot-test application. DC, IS, and MR disseminated the questionnaire. DC, IS, MR, PC, and FM analyzed the results. FM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Footnotes

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Escola Superior de Saúde do Instituto Politécnico do Porto (Document approved number CE0093C).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Fernando Moreira

References

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.

Debela

Muzazu

Heraro

, et al. New approaches and procedures for cancer treatment: current perspectives. SAGE Open Med 2021; 9: 20503121211034366.

Jaffe

. Possible hazards of handling antineoplastic drugs. Pediatrics 1970; 46: 648–649.

Donner

. Possible risk of working with antineoplastic drugs in horizontal laminar flow hoods. Am J Hosp Pharm 1978; 35: 900.

Dranitsaris

Johnston

Poirier

, 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 Pract 2005; 11: 69–78.

Connor

McDiarmid

. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs in health care settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 354–365.

Ritchie

McAdams

Fritz

. Exposure risk in the handling and administration of chemotherapy agents: a review and synthesis of the literature. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs 2000; 7: 4.

Blair

Zheng

Linos

, et al. Occupation and leukemia: a population-based case-control study in Iowa and Minnesota. Am J Ind Med 2001; 40: 3–14.

Ratner

Spinelli

Beking

, et al. Cancer incidence and adverse pregnancy outcome in registered nurses potentially exposed to antineoplastic drugs. BMC Nurs 2010; 9: 15.

10.

Topçu

Beşer

. Oncology nurses’ perspectives on safe handling precautions: a qualitative study. Contemp Nurse 2017; 53: 271–283.

11.

Hon

Teschke

Shen

, et al. Antineoplastic drug contamination in the urine of Canadian healthcare workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2015; 88: 933–941.

12.

Sottani

Porro

Imbriani

, et al. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in four Italian health care settings. Toxicol Lett 2012; 213: 107–115.

13.

Turci

Minoia

Sottani

, et al. Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs in seven Italian hospitals: the effect of quality assurance and adherence to guidelines. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2011; 17: 320–332.

14.

Mason

Blair

Sams

, et al. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs in two UK hospital pharmacy units. Ann Occup Hyg 2005; 49: 603–610.

15.

Burgaz

Karahalil

Bayrak

, et al. Urinary cyclophosphamide excretion and micronuclei frequencies in peripheral lymphocytes and in exfoliated buccal epithelial cells of nurses handling antineoplastics. Mutat Res 1999; 439: 97–104.

16.

Hedmer

Tinnerberg

Axmon

, et al. Environmental and biological monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in four workplaces in a Swedish hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008; 81: 899–911.

17.

. Occupational exposure in health care personnel to antineoplastic drugs and initiation of safe handling in Hong Kong: a literature review. J Infus Nurs 2020; 43: 121–133.

18.

Fuller

Bain

Sperrazza

, et al. A survey of the status of hazardous drug awareness and control in a sample Massachusetts nursing population. J Occup Environ Hyg 2007; 4: D113–D119.

19.

Constantinidis

Vagka

Dallidou

, et al. Occupational health and safety of personnel handling chemotherapeutic agents in Greek hospitals. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2011; 20: 123–131.

20.

Santos Junior

Souza

Garrido

, et al. Biossegurança em oncologia e o profissional farmacêutico: análise de prescrição e manipulação de medicamentos antineoplásicos. Rev Baiana Saúde Públ 2017; 40. https://doi.org/10.22278/2318-2660.2016.v40.n4.a1603

21.

Boiano

Steege

Sweeney

. Adherence to safe handling guidelines by health care workers who administer antineoplastic drugs. J Occup Environ Hyg 2014; 11: 728–740.

22.

Stajicj

Barnett

Turner

, et al. Protective measures used by oncologic office nurses handling parenteral antineoplastic agents. Oncol Nurs Forum 1986; 13: 47–49.

23.

Valanis

McNeil

Driscoll

. Staff members’ compliance with their facility's antineoplastic drug handling policy. Oncol Nurs Forum 1991; 18: 571–576.

24.

Valanis

Shortridge

. Self protective practices of nurses handling antineoplastic drugs. Oncol Nurs Forum 1987; 14: 23–27.

25.

Mahon

Casperson

Yackzan

, et al. Safe handling practices of cytotoxic drugs: the results of a chapter survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 1994; 21: 1157–1165.

26.

Nieweg

de Boer

Dubbleman

, et al. Safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. Results of a survey. Cancer Nurs 1994; 17: 501–511.

27.

Martin

Larson

. Chemotherapy-handling practices of outpatient and office-based oncology nurses. Oncol Nurs Forum 2003; 30: 575–581.

28.

Kyprianou

Kapsou

Raftopoulos

, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of Cypriot nurses on the handling of antineoplastic agents. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2010; 14: 278–282.

29.

Polovich

Martin

. Nurses’ use of hazardous drug-handling precautions and awareness of national safety guidelines. Oncol Nurs Forum 2011; 38: 718–726.

30.

Keat

Sooaid

Yun

, et al. Improving safety-related knowledge, attitude and practices of nurses handling cytotoxic anticancer drug: pharmacists’ experience in a general hospital, Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14: 69–73.

31.

Jenn

. Designing A questionnaire. Malays Fam Physician 2006; 1: 32–35.

32.

Hon

Teschke

Shen

. Health care workers’ knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors regarding antineoplastic drugs: survey from British Columbia, Canada. J Occup Environ Hyg 2015; 12: 669–677.

33.

Hon

Abusitta

. Causes of health care Workers’ exposure to antineoplastic drugs: an exploratory study. Can J Hosp Pharm 2016; 69: 216–223.

34.

Boiano

Steege

Sweeney

. Adherence to precautionary guidelines for compounding antineoplastic drugs: a survey of nurses and pharmacy practitioners. J Occup Environ Hyg 2015; 12: 588–602.

35.

Alehashem

Baniasadi

. Important exposure controls for protection against antineoplastic agents: highlights for oncology health care workers. Work 2018; 59: 165–172.

36.

International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners I. ISOPP standards for the safe handling of cytotoxics. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2022; 28: S1–S126.

37.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration O. Controlling Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Drugs. United States Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2016.

38.

European Society of Oncology Pharmacy E. QUAPOS 6 - Quality Standard for the Oncology Pharmacy Service. Brussels, Belgium: European Society of Oncology Pharmacy, 2018.

39.

Goldspiel

Hoffman

Griffith

, et al. ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors with chemotherapy and biotherapy. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2015; 72: e6–e35.

40.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health N. Preventing Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic and Other Hazardous Drugs in Health Care Settings. CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004.

41.

Association paritaire pour la santé et la sécurité du travail du secteur affaires sociales A. Prevention Guide - Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs. Association paritaire pour la santé et la sécurité du travail du secteur affaires sociales, 2007.

42.

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists A. ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2018; 75: 1996–2031.

43.

USP USPC. USP General Chapter <800> Hazardous Drugs– Handling in Healthcare Settings. www.usp.org2020.

44.

Power

Coyne

. ASHP Guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2018; 75: 1996–2031.

45.

Sadeghipour

Lorenzini

Ziewitz

, et al. Chemical contamination during the preparation of cytotoxics: validation protocol for operators in hospital pharmacies. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2013; 19: 57–64.

46.

Baussant

Georgel

Loeuillet

, et al. Development of a quinine test for improved handling of cytotoxic preparations. Eur J Oncol Pharm 2014; 8: 24–27.

47.

Siderov

Kirsa

McLauchlan

. Reducing workplace cytotoxic surface contamination using a closed-system drug transfer device. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2010; 16: 19–25.

48.

Connor

Anderson

Sessink

, et al. Effectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 68–72.

49.

Yoshida

Tei

Mochizuki

, et al. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg 2009; 53: 153–160.

50.

Vyas

Yiannakis

Turner

, et al. Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: a review of effects of new technology. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2014; 20: 278–287.

51.

Favier

Labrosse

Gilles-Afchain

, et al. The PhaSeal® system: impact of its use on workplace contamination and duration of chemotherapy preparation. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2012; 18: 37–45.

52.

Wick

Slawson

Jorgenson

, et al. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2003; 60: 2314–2320.