Anticancer drug preparation by pharmacists is a critical task directly related to medical incidents. This study examined the factors influencing medical errors in chemotherapy, that is, errors by specialist pharmacist...Anticancer drug preparation by pharmacists is a critical task directly related to medical incidents. This study examined the factors influencing medical errors in chemotherapy, that is, errors by specialist pharmacists (CPh) and pharmacists in other departments (NCPh), by measuring their gaze during the preparation of anticancer drugs. The eye-tracking results showed that the gazing time of NCPh was significantly longer than that of CPh for items such as “preparation of a closed-system device” and “preparation of the syringe” and all preparation times (P < 0.05). The NCPh were not assigned to prepare drugs on a regular basis, indicating their lack of familiarity with the process. There was no significant difference in gaze ratio between CPh and NCPh. This outcome was suggested to be a result of the use of an anticancer drug preparation support system. The results for the pupil diameter variation rate showed that NCPh were significantly more mydriatic in the “mixing injections” category than CPh. However, CPh tended to be more mydriatic in the “checking” category. CPh exhibited a smooth workflow and focused on the important items to be checked. This study showed that the differences in procedure flow and concentration points may lead to errors. Furthermore, the results are of interest from the perspective of medical incident prevention. They will be useful in identifying potential human factors, such as where the pharmacist focuses their attention by measuring eye movements.展开更多
文摘Anticancer drug preparation by pharmacists is a critical task directly related to medical incidents. This study examined the factors influencing medical errors in chemotherapy, that is, errors by specialist pharmacists (CPh) and pharmacists in other departments (NCPh), by measuring their gaze during the preparation of anticancer drugs. The eye-tracking results showed that the gazing time of NCPh was significantly longer than that of CPh for items such as “preparation of a closed-system device” and “preparation of the syringe” and all preparation times (P < 0.05). The NCPh were not assigned to prepare drugs on a regular basis, indicating their lack of familiarity with the process. There was no significant difference in gaze ratio between CPh and NCPh. This outcome was suggested to be a result of the use of an anticancer drug preparation support system. The results for the pupil diameter variation rate showed that NCPh were significantly more mydriatic in the “mixing injections” category than CPh. However, CPh tended to be more mydriatic in the “checking” category. CPh exhibited a smooth workflow and focused on the important items to be checked. This study showed that the differences in procedure flow and concentration points may lead to errors. Furthermore, the results are of interest from the perspective of medical incident prevention. They will be useful in identifying potential human factors, such as where the pharmacist focuses their attention by measuring eye movements.
