Cargando…

Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit

OBJECTIVE: The global professional risk assessment applied to the central unit of antineoplastic agent preparations is part of a mandatory approach required by the European legislation for workers. This study identified the hazardous situations related to the staff activity and then enabled the prep...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dubray, Quentin, Diallo, Taibou, Loeuillet, Richard, Andre, Emilie, Fauqueur, Anne-Sophie, Poil, Sandrine, Thromas, Nathalie, Secretan, Philippe-Henri, Cisternino, Salvatore, Schlatter, Joël
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6661790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31384466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119866970
_version_ 1783439526795935744
author Dubray, Quentin
Diallo, Taibou
Loeuillet, Richard
Andre, Emilie
Fauqueur, Anne-Sophie
Poil, Sandrine
Thromas, Nathalie
Secretan, Philippe-Henri
Cisternino, Salvatore
Schlatter, Joël
author_facet Dubray, Quentin
Diallo, Taibou
Loeuillet, Richard
Andre, Emilie
Fauqueur, Anne-Sophie
Poil, Sandrine
Thromas, Nathalie
Secretan, Philippe-Henri
Cisternino, Salvatore
Schlatter, Joël
author_sort Dubray, Quentin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The global professional risk assessment applied to the central unit of antineoplastic agent preparations is part of a mandatory approach required by the European legislation for workers. This study identified the hazardous situations related to the staff activity and then enabled the preparation of a formal plan of occupational prevention. METHODS: The nature of study approved by a working group constituted by experts was the global risk analysis. After identifying the hazardous situations, the global risk analysis estimated the risk level of each hazardous situation based on a criticality score, including severity and frequency. The global risk analysis highlighted the initial and residual risks after establishing a plan to reduce the high criticality risks. RESULTS: Hence, 33 unacceptable hazardous situations were identified. The critical categories of professional risks were “Product, emissions, and waste risks” with 17 (55%) hazardous situations; “Psychosocial risk factors” with 8 (24%) hazardous situations; and “Risks related to work equipment” with 6 (18%) hazardous situations. Once the risk reduction plan was in place, all hazardous situations were considered under control. The corrective actions led to a reorganization of human resources, the update of protection protocols, and optimization of ergonomic work tools. Staff-specific medical monitoring and regular surface contamination tests have been scheduled annually. In addition, initial and continuous training, specific to product and waste risks, has been updated. CONCLUSION: The global professional risk assessment related to centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit generated failure in our system and enabled corrective actions for staff safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6661790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66617902019-08-05 Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit Dubray, Quentin Diallo, Taibou Loeuillet, Richard Andre, Emilie Fauqueur, Anne-Sophie Poil, Sandrine Thromas, Nathalie Secretan, Philippe-Henri Cisternino, Salvatore Schlatter, Joël SAGE Open Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: The global professional risk assessment applied to the central unit of antineoplastic agent preparations is part of a mandatory approach required by the European legislation for workers. This study identified the hazardous situations related to the staff activity and then enabled the preparation of a formal plan of occupational prevention. METHODS: The nature of study approved by a working group constituted by experts was the global risk analysis. After identifying the hazardous situations, the global risk analysis estimated the risk level of each hazardous situation based on a criticality score, including severity and frequency. The global risk analysis highlighted the initial and residual risks after establishing a plan to reduce the high criticality risks. RESULTS: Hence, 33 unacceptable hazardous situations were identified. The critical categories of professional risks were “Product, emissions, and waste risks” with 17 (55%) hazardous situations; “Psychosocial risk factors” with 8 (24%) hazardous situations; and “Risks related to work equipment” with 6 (18%) hazardous situations. Once the risk reduction plan was in place, all hazardous situations were considered under control. The corrective actions led to a reorganization of human resources, the update of protection protocols, and optimization of ergonomic work tools. Staff-specific medical monitoring and regular surface contamination tests have been scheduled annually. In addition, initial and continuous training, specific to product and waste risks, has been updated. CONCLUSION: The global professional risk assessment related to centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit generated failure in our system and enabled corrective actions for staff safety. SAGE Publications 2019-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6661790/ /pubmed/31384466 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119866970 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Dubray, Quentin
Diallo, Taibou
Loeuillet, Richard
Andre, Emilie
Fauqueur, Anne-Sophie
Poil, Sandrine
Thromas, Nathalie
Secretan, Philippe-Henri
Cisternino, Salvatore
Schlatter, Joël
Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title_full Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title_fullStr Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title_full_unstemmed Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title_short Occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
title_sort occupational risks evaluation in a centralized antineoplastic agent preparation unit
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6661790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31384466
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119866970
work_keys_str_mv AT dubrayquentin occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT diallotaibou occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT loeuilletrichard occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT andreemilie occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT fauqueurannesophie occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT poilsandrine occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT thromasnathalie occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT secretanphilippehenri occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT cisterninosalvatore occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit
AT schlatterjoel occupationalrisksevaluationinacentralizedantineoplasticagentpreparationunit