The multidisciplinary system with a well-established CPP detects 20.9 MEs per 1000 patient-days and intercepts 98.8% of all MEs with a potential for causing patient damage.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative, pathological and functional outcomes in two contemporary, large series of patients in different institutions and who underwent open partial nephrectomy (OPN) or robot-assisted PN (RAPN) for suspected renal tumours. Patients and MethodsThis was a retrospective, multicentre, international, matched-pair analysis comparing patients who underwent RAPN or OPN for suspected renal cell carcinoma.Data on patients who underwent OPN were extracted by an Italian observational registry collecting data from 19 different centres.Data on patients who received RAPN were extracted from a multicentre, international database collecting cases treated in four high-volume referral centres of robotic surgery.The matching was in a 1:1 ratio for the surgical approach and included 200 patients in each arm. ResultsThe mean warm ischaemia time was shorter in the OPN group than in the RAPN group, at a mean (SD) of 15.4 (5.9) vs 19.2 (7.3) min (P < 0.001).Conversely, the median (interquartile range) estimated blood loss was 150 (100-300) mL in the OPN group and 100 (50-150) mL in the RAPN group (P < 0.001).There were no differences in operating time (P = 0.18) and the intraoperative complication rate (P = 0.31) between the approaches.Postoperative complications were recorded in 43 (21.5%) patients who underwent OPN and in 28 (14%) who received RAPN (P = 0.02). Moreover, major complications (grade 3-4) were reported in nine (4.5%) patients after OPN and in nine (4.5%) after RAPN.Positive margins were detected in nine (5.5%) patients after OPN and in nine (5.7%) after RAPN (P = 0.98). The mean (SD) 3-month estimated glomerular filtration rate declined by 16.6 (18.1) mL/min from the preoperative value in the OPN group and by 16.4 (22.9) mL/min in the RAPN group (P = 0.28). ConclusionRAPN can achieve equivalent perioperative, early oncological and functional outcomes as OPN. Moreover, RAPN is a less invasive approach, offering a lower risk of bleeding and postoperative complications than OPN.

Background Dose banding (DB) is a strategy to rationalise antineoplastic production at Hospital Pharmacy Aseptic Compounding Units (ACUs) and to reduce patient's waiting time. DB allows for optimizing workflows and workloads, facilitating adoption of new technologies, and increasing safety, quality and efficiency of the compounding process. Objective To evaluate the potential impact of implementation of Logarithmic DB and to identify antineoplastic agents and preparations that fulfil criteria published and establish the number and standard doses that could be compounded in advance at the ACU. Setting University and Polytechnic third level general hospital. Method Retrospective observational study (December 2015-May 2016). Antineoplastic dose production was analysed. Investigational drugs were excluded. Three criteria were applied following bibliography reviewed to select candidates to be compounded at our ACU as standardised using logarithmic DB: (a) Antineoplastic preparations > 250 per year; (b) psychochemical stability in optimal storage conditions at least 14 days; (c) maximum five logarithmic standardised doses that include at least 60% of all individualised doses compounded for a given drug. Main outcome measure Number of antineoplastic agents, preparations and logarithmic standard doses candidates to DB. Results 15,436 antineoplastic individualised doses corresponding to 69 antineoplastic agents were analysed. At our institution applying selection criteria, 19 (27%) antineoplastic drugs (3 monoclonal antibodies, 16 cytotoxic) were potential candidates to DB. 6285 (40%) of compounded individualised dose preparations could be prepared in 84 logarithmic standard doses in advance. Conclusion Dose banding implementations could contribute to rationalise antineoplastic production and increase the ACUs compounding capacity.