Surface contamination of cytotoxic medicine in preparation and patient care areas in Australian hospitals: a retrospective cross‐sectional study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundCytotoxic medicine contamination of preparation and administration areas of oncology healthcare facilities poses a risk to staff facing repeated low‐level exposure over time. The use of closed‐system transfer devices (CSTDs) during preparation and administration of cytotoxic products may reduce the levels of contamination. The primary aim was to determine the levels of cytotoxic medicine contamination in preparation and administration areas of hospitals that use CSTDs compared to those that do not.AimThe primary aim was to determine the levels of cytotoxic medicine contamination in preparation and administration areas of hospitals that use CSTDs compared to those that do not.MethodA retrospective, cross‐sectional study across four Australian hospitals was conducted. Cytotoxic medicine contamination was determined via surface wipe sampling on six specified surfaces. The samples were tested for cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, etoposide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, methotrexate, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, topotecan, and vinblastine. This project was exempt due to the local policy requirements that constitute research by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference no: ETH01899). The justification for this ethics exemption was as follows: this was a study involving sample testing only and did not include human participants or participation.ResultsEnvironmental contamination with cytotoxic medications was observed at all hospitals, regardless of the CSTD used. Of the 24 samples tested, the agent most frequently seen was ifosfamide with 29% (n = 7), followed by cyclophosphamide 13% (n = 3), and methotrexate 8% (n = 2). There was no statistically significant difference between hospitals that used CSTDs compared to hospitals that did not (25% vs 42%, p = 0.67). Contamination was more extensive in preparation areas than administration areas, and was observed on the biological safety cabinets (BSC) worktop, packaging bench, and floor in front of the BSCs.ConclusionAll sites had contamination present for cytotoxic medicines. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of contaminated surfaces between sites that used CSTDs versus sites where CSTDs were not used. Only ifosfamide contamination was identified in pharmacy areas that used CSTDs. Safe work practices and staff training are encouraged to further minimise exposure risk.