Transdermal drug delivery systems are pharmaceutical forms designed to administer a drug through the skin to obtain a systemic effect. They ensure a constant rate of drug administration and a prolonged action. Several different types of transdermal delivery devices are available on the market. They are either matrix or reservoir systems and their main current uses are to treat neurological disorders, pain and coronary artery disease, and as hormone replacement therapy. Transdermal drug administration has a number of advantages compared with the oral route: it avoids gastrointestinal absorption and hepatic first-pass metabolism, minimizes adverse effects arising from peak plasma drug concentrations and improves patient compliance. Compared with the parenteral route, transdermal administration entails no risk of infection. For elderly people, who are often polymedicated, transdermal drug delivery can be a good alternative route of administration. Transdermal absorption depends on passive diffusion through the different layers of the skin. As skin undergoes many structural and functional changes with increasing age, it would be useful to know whether these alterations affect the transdermal diffusion of drugs. Studies have shown that age-related changes in hydration and lipidic structure result in an increased barrier function of the stratum corneum only for relatively hydrophilic compounds. In practice, no significant differences in absorption of drugs from transdermal delivery systems have been demonstrated between young and old individuals. The need for dose adaptation in elderly patients using transdermal drug delivery systems is therefore not related to differences in skin absorption but rather to age-related cardiovascular, cerebral, hepatic and/or renal compromise, and to ensuing geriatric pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes.

BackgroundHospital discharge is a complex multidisciplinary process that can lead to non-compliance and drugs-related problems. Crucial issue for children is parental knowledge of discharge treatments, especially in the time-limited and stressful environment of an emergency department (ED).ObjectiveTo compare parental correct knowledge of treatment with and without supply of customised drug information leaflets for the 10 most commonly prescribed drugs.MethodInclusion criteria: paediatric patients (0–16 years) with French-speaking parents discharged from ED of the paediatric department of Geneva University Hospitals before (phase A) and after (phase B) intervention.InterventionSupply and brief comment of drug information leaflets focusing on specific information not available in official drugs information documents. Follow-up Semi-structured phone interview within 72 h after discharge to evaluate the percentage of parents with correct knowledge of dose, frequency, duration and indication of drugs. Multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with correct knowledge (phases A/B, drugs collection at usual pharmacy, drugs categories).Results125 patients were included (phase A: 56; phase B: 69). Drug information leaflets were given to 63/69 ED patients (91%), covering 96/138 prescribed drugs (70%). Parental knowledge was significantly improved in phase B (dose: 62.3% to 89.1%; frequency: 57.9% to 85.5%; duration: 34.2% to 66.7%; indication: 70.2% to 94.9%; p<0.0001). Phase B and collection of drugs at usual pharmacy were significant factors associated with correct knowledge.ConclusionsDrug information leaflets significantly improved treatment knowledge of French-speaking parents after paediatric ED discharge. Leaflets are now available online for general population.

Purpose Healthcare professionals frequently have to handle hazardous drugs in the hospital setting. Data on the inherent toxicity of drugs cannot be directly applied to occupational exposure. We developed a standardised method to evaluate occupational risks and to recommend protective measures. Methods Step 1: evaluation of chronic and acute toxicities and toxicity for reproduction. Step 2: toxicity weighting according to risk of exposure related to drug formulations. Step 3: definition of protective measures. Step 4: toxicity assessment of drugs used in our institution and comparison with hazardous drug lists published in the literature. Results The whole process resulted in a standardised evaluation algorithm. Risks of exposure were determined by a panel of experts to balance intrinsic toxicity of each drug formulation or administration route. Protective measures were recommended. 80 substances (109 drug formulations) were screened for toxicity. Centralisation of compounding in the pharmacy was recommended for 12/24 (50%) of intravenous liquids, 19/32 (60%) of intravenous powders and 7/26 (27%) tablets (crushing). We found a slightly different estimation of risk for only two products (prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil) compared with the literature lists (National Institute for Occupational and Safety in Health Alert and University Health System Consortium Consensus). Conclusions We developed a simple standardised method to generate a list of hazardous drugs in our hospital according to the risk of exposure. We determined reasonable protective measures that could be easily introduced into practice to protect healthcare workers.

Spontaneous incident reporting leads to high levels of under-reporting, but highlighted similar problems at paediatric hospital discharge to FMECA. Using FMECA allowed estimations of criticalities at each step and the potential impact of safety improvement strategies. Proactive and reactive methods proved complementary and would help to set up effective targeted improvement strategies to improve medication process at paediatric hospital discharge.