Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Guidelines for safe handling of hazardous drugs: A systematic review

  • Mari A. Bernabeu-Martínez,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Public Health and History of Science, School of Medicine, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain

  • Mateo Ramos Merino,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Telematics Engineering, Telecommunication Engineering School of the University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

  • Juan M. Santos Gago,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Telematics Engineering, Telecommunication Engineering School of the University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

  • Luis M. Álvarez Sabucedo,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Telematics Engineering, Telecommunication Engineering School of the University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain

  • Carmina Wanden-Berghe,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Health and Biomedical Research Institute of Alicante, University General Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain

  • Javier Sanz-Valero

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    jsanz@umh.es

    Affiliation Department of Public Health and History of Science, School of Medicine, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain

Guidelines for safe handling of hazardous drugs: A systematic review

  • Mari A. Bernabeu-Martínez, 
  • Mateo Ramos Merino, 
  • Juan M. Santos Gago, 
  • Luis M. Álvarez Sabucedo, 
  • Carmina Wanden-Berghe, 
  • Javier Sanz-Valero
PLOS
x

Abstract

Objective

To review the scientific literature related to the safe handling of hazardous drugs (HDs).

Method

Critical analysis of works retrieved from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINHAL, Web of Science and LILACS using the terms "Hazardous Substances", "Antineoplastic Agents" and "Cytostatic Agents", applying "Humans" and "Guidelines" as filters. Date of search: January 2017.

Results

In total, 1100 references were retrieved, and from those, 61 documents were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria: 24 (39.3%) documents related to recommendations about HDs; 27 (44.3%) about antineoplastic agents, and 10 (33.3%) about other types of substances (monoclonal antibodies, gene medicine and other chemical and biological agents). In 14 (23.3%) guides, all the stages in the manipulation process involving a risk due to exposure were considered. Only one guide addressed all stages of the handling process of HDs (including stages with and without the risk of exposure). The most described stages were drug preparation (41 guides, 67.2%), staff training and/or patient education (38 guides, 62.3%), and administration (37 guides, 60.7%). No standardized informatics system was found that ensured quality management, traceability and minimization of the risks associated with these drugs.

Conclusions

Most of the analysed guidelines limit their recommendations to the manipulation of antineoplastics. The most frequently described activities were preparation, training, and administration. It would be convenient to apply ICTs (Information and Communications Technologies) to manage processes involving HDs in a more complete and simpler fashion.

Introduction

The toxic properties of cytostatic drugs have been well known since the 1940s when they began to be used in the oncological field [1]. However, it took nearly four decades before Falck et al. [2] published the first paper describing an increase in mutagenicity in nurses working with cytostatic drugs, demonstrating for the first time the potential occupational risk involved in the manipulation of these medicines. The publication of a series of subsequent studies [36], whose results pointed to the possible relationship between occupational exposure to cytostatics and the increase of various health effects, was key for different government organizations and scientific societies to establish the first guidelines for the safe handling of this type of medication. In 1981, the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA) published the first guide for the safe management of cytostatic medicines [7], and four years later, their North American colleagues followed suit [8, 9].

The concept of a "hazardous drug" (HD), which until then was exclusively associated with cytostatic drugs, was introduced in 1990 by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists (ASHP) [10] and adopted in 2004 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This led to the current and internationally accepted definition: any medicinal product that presents in humans one or more of the following hazard criteria: carcinogenicity, teratogenicity or other developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, low dose organ toxicity, genotoxicity or drugs with a similar structure or toxicity profile to other dangerous drugs [11].

Later, in 2014, the NIOSH classified HDs into three groups [12]: antineoplastic drugs; non-antineoplastic drugs that meet at least one criterion of danger; and drugs that present a risk to the reproductive process and which may affect men and women who are attempting to conceive actively and to pregnant or lactating women, but do not pose any risk to the rest of the population.

Hazardous drugs, specifically the subgroup of antineoplastic drugs, have been described as the greatest chemical hazard present in the health field and one of the most dangerous chemical agents ever developed [13].

Organizations focused on occupational safety, such as the Joint Commission [14], the Occupational and Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [15], the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) [16] and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) [17], are paying increasing attention to recommendations and strategies for improving safety regarding HDs.

Importantly, given the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of HD manipulation, these processes are particularly error prone. This fact, in addition to the inherent hazards already described, leads us to consider HD as a high-risk therapy that can pose serious risks for both the patient and the involved professionals [18,19].

Therefore, it is essential to standardize these processes because when a protocol correctly implements clinical guidelines, the variability is reduced. This leads to improved quality and minimized risks associated with this type of medication [20].

However, despite efforts made over the past four decades at the international level to establish guidelines to ensure the safe use of HDs, there are currently no globally harmonized standards for the prevention of HD exposure [13], and the ever-worrisome problem is far from being solved [13,21].

For all the reasons abovementioned, it seems mandatory to achieve an updated revision of the main recommendations and/or standards related to the manipulation of HDs. To achieve a standardized model to handling HDs, the main stages involved in proper HD manipulation must be identified, as should preventive measures that can be applied to avoid occupational exposure to HDs. Therefore, the objective of this work was to review the scientific literature on the safe handling of HDs.

Materials and methods

Design

A descriptive cross-sectional study and critical analysis of the works recovered through systematic techniques was conducted.

Sources of data collection

The data were retrieved from direct query and access, on the Internet, from the following bibliographic databases in the field of health sciences: MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Web of Science (ISI-Institute for Scientific Information) and LILACS.

Information processing

To define the search terms, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), a thesaurus developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, was used. The MeSH descriptors "Antineoplastic Agents", "Hazardous Substances" and "Cytostatic Agents" were considered suitable. Likewise, these terms were used to query the database using the title and abstract field (Title/Abstract).

The main search strategy was created for its usage in the MEDLINE database, via PubMed, using the filters "Humans" and "Guidelines", S1 File.

The search was restricted to results from September 2004 (date of the first NIOSH alert, which establishes the current internationally accepted definition of HD) until January 2017 (moment of the last update). This strategy was adapted to the particular features of other databases considered.

Additionally, a search using a complementary strategy was conducted to reduce the possibility of publication bias by searching the reference lists of relevant guidelines. Furthermore, experts in the domain were contacted to avoid issues regarding possible grey literature (materials and research produced by organizations outside of the traditional commercial or academic publishing and distribution channels).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The records were subsequently screened according to the a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria shown in Fig 1.

Inclusion criteria (I).

Articles that dealt with the HD handling process (I1) and were published in English or Spanish (I2). Additionally, the full text of the document should be accessible (I3). Only one version of each document was included (R). The same criterion was applied to those documents that were duplicated (I4).

Exclusion criteria (E).

Documents whose scope of application was not health (E1) and all those published by local institutions (E2). Moreover, works were excluded that could not be considered guidelines (E3) according to the definition by MeSH (i.e., a set of statements, directions, or principles presenting current or future rules or policies. Guidelines may be developed by government agencies at any level, institutions, organizations such as professional societies or governing boards, or by the convening of expert panels). It must be noted that many guidelines are presented to the reader as recommendations although they fit in the former definition by MeSH.

Final selection of articles

The selection of relevant articles was performed independently by two authors: MBM and JSV. To validate the inclusion of the studies, the assessment of concordance between these authors (Kappa index) should be higher than 80% [22]. Whenever this condition was not met, the possible discordances were solved by consulting the author CWB and subsequent consensus among all the authors.

Data extraction

The continuous control of the validity of the data was ensured using double tables that allowed detection and corrections of errors by means of new queries to the original data. The Burton-Kebler half-period (the median age) and the Price Index (percentage of the articles published in the last 5 years) were calculated to determine the actuality of the articles.

The chosen documents were classified to systematize and facilitate the understanding of the results and were collected in a table showing the most relevant information from each work. In particular, the following variables were included [Table 1]: first author of the bibliographical reference and year of publication, country, institution or organization that developed the guide, type of institution (governmental, non-governmental, or professional), type of hazardous substance being addressed (HD (based on the NIOSH 2004 alert), antineoplastic (refers to anticancer drugs) and other substances), scope (institution or place where HD is applied), and stages of the process being controlled:

  1. Stages with risk of exposure: reception and storage, drug preparation, transportation and distribution, administration, extravasation, patient care (excreta handling, body fluids, and linen), waste management, procedures in case of spill or accidental exposure, and cleaning procedures.
  2. Stages without risk of exposure: selection of medicines and commercial presentations (choice of medicines at the time of purchase, taking into account specific aspects that may affect the safety and health of professionals, patients and the environment, such as robust packaging to prevent breakage, design that minimizes handling, etc.), staff training and/or patient education, documentation, medical surveillance and environmental and/or biological monitoring of hazardous substances, understood as the measurement of chemical substances and their metabolites in exposed workers [23].
  3. Complementary stages: prescription, validation, patient monitoring, manufacturing by the industry and sterilization.

Results

Using the search criteria described, 1100 references were retrieved: 735 in MEDLINE, 183 in the Cochrane Library, 137 in Scopus, 3 in CINHAL, 42 in the Web of Science, and 49 provided by experts. No references were obtained from the search performed in the LILACS bibliographic database.

After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, reviewing the bibliographic lists, and consulting with experts (Fig 1), 61 documents were selected [11,1316,18,2479] (check Table 1).

The Kappa coefficient of the agreement in the selection of articles amongst the evaluators was 98.0% (p <0.001).

The 61 selected articles received an obsolescence rate, according to the Burton-Kebler Index, equal to 5 years, with a Price index of 45.9%.

The documents had been developed in 13 different countries: the USA (20 guidelines, 32.8%) and Spain (17, 27.9%) were largest producers of guides, followed by the United Kingdom (6, 9.8%), Australia (6, 9.8%), Canada (4, 6.6%), Switzerland (2, 3.3%), Germany (2, 3.3%) and Belgium (1, 1.6%). Likewise, other countries such as Sweden, Austria, Malaysia, France and Italy participated jointly in the elaboration of several documents both in the European scope (1, 1.6%) and at the international level (2, 3.3%).

Fig 2 presents the chronological development in a timeline figure to illustrate the sequence and development of guidelines over years and countries.

Regarding the language, 44 of the 61 (72.1%) references retrieved were written in English and 17 were (27.9%) in Spanish.

In relation to institutional affiliation, 36 different organizations were identified: 15 agencies or governmental institutions authored 30 (49.2%) documents, 19 professional societies developed 29 documents (47.5%), and 2 non-governmental agencies published 2 (3.3%) guides; see Table 1.

Scope

Most of the documents (38, 62.3%) focused their recommendations on the handling of hazardous substances in health centres, and 12 (19.5%) took into account the home setting. In 5 (8.2%) documents [42,46,49,50,62], the scope was general (i.e., the application area of the guidelines is not specific but applies to any sector in which such hazardous substances are handled), and 6 (9.8%) guides included, in addition to the health area, recommendations for other sectors, such as the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies and veterinary clinics [37,38,47,53,67,74].

Type of substance

Twenty-four documents approached HD-related recommendations (39.3%) [11,14,15,2532,36,43,54,56,59,6567,69,74,76,78,79], whereas 27 studies (44.3%) focused on antineoplastics (specific for anticancer drugs) [13,16,24,3335,3740,47,48,5153,55,57,58,60,61,63,64,68,7072,75,77]. In addition, 10 guidelines (16.4%) addressed other types of substances, such as monoclonal antibodies, gene medicine and other chemical and biological agents [18,41,42,4446,49,50,62,73].

Stages in the management process for dangerous drugs

Amongst all the retrieved guidelines, 14 (23.3%) references considered all the stages of the manipulation process in which there is a risk of exposure (stage a); the extravasation stage was considered a part of the administration stage since it is a complication of this [11,15,16,26,33,38,40,47,48,53,56,65,73,74]. Of these 14 guides, 13 also considered stages in the handling process without risk of exposure: drug selection and commercial presentations [26,33,74], staff training and/or patient education [11,15,16,26,33,38,40,47,48,53,56,65,73,74], documentation [15,16,26,38,40,47,48,56,73,74], medical surveillance [11,15,16,26,33,38,40,47,56,65,73,74] and environmental and/or biological monitoring [15,33,38,47,65,74]. Furthermore, 6 of the 14 references also addressed complementary stages: prescription [47,48,53], validation [40,47,48,61,74], patient monitoring [47,48,61], and manufacturing [47,53,74].

Only one guide, the ISOPP Standards of Practice [74], addressed all stages of the process of handling hazardous substances (stages with and without risk of exposure).

No standardized systems to ensure quality management, traceability of processes, and minimization of risks associated with these drugs were found. There was no mention in the reviewed guidelines of any computerized system to ensure the proper management of the entire HD process.

Twelve (20%) of the selected documents did not include specific stages of the manipulation process. Their content was of a general nature, describing transversal actions that can affect all stages of the process, general prevention measures, and strategies, guidelines or policies to be followed [13,14,18,32,36,42,46,49,50,59,62,66].

The most described stages were elaboration (41 guides, 67.2%), staff training and/or patient education (38 guides, 62.3%), and administration (37 guides, 60.7%). The stages that were less frequently addressed were cleaning and decontamination procedures (26 guidelines, 42.63%), patient care (24 documents, 39.3%), and medical surveillance (18 documents, 29.5%) [Table 2].

thumbnail
Table 2. Rate of each stage in the selected documents and its classification regarding exposition.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197172.t002

Discussion

The high number of retrieved guidelines shows the existing concern regarding exposure to HDs and the safe management of these substances. However, unexpectedly, there was only one international consensus document that tackles the entire process of HD manipulation, and there were no computerized systems recommended to guarantee proper management of the HD process.

This study shows that obsolescence is very present. Half of the recovered guidelines were published in the last 5 years, a larger ratio than other previously published papers in the health sciences and hospital pharmacy environments [80,81]. These results support the high interest that the study of HD management is experiencing in recent years.

It is not surprising that the United States is the place of origin of most guidelines since it is the country with the highest scientific production. It must be borne in mind that eight of the top ten universities in the world are in the USA, which continues to be the world leader in science and innovation [82]. However, European countries as a whole are the promotors of the largest scientific production in this context, a phenomenon previously observed by Hon et al. [83].

Although works from both continents have the same validity, it is important to note that the recommendations contained in documents from the US may not be transferable to Europe, mainly due to differences in the regulatory framework of the different countries. Therefore, given the relevance of the issue to workers' health, more initiatives at an international level should be performed to harmonize standards and unify the legal framework as far as possible.

The English language was chosen for publication in most articles since a different language could have a negative impact on visibility and citability. In addition, the number of English-language journals contained in the considered databases is currently very high [82,84].

The institutional affiliation reflects the commitment of the agencies involved in the HD process. Despite multiple efforts made worldwide to establish standards in the management of MP, the safety of HD manipulation is an unresolved issue, which concerns governments and professional societies worldwide because there is a wide range of variants amongst the different guidelines. This conclusion has already been highlighted by other authors [85]. Proof of this is shown in the recent publication from the European Parliament [13], which reflects the preoccupation of addressing this issue.

It is important to emphasize that professional societies were linked entirely to the health field. Involved governmental agencies depend as much on health administration as on labour administration.

Scope of application

More than one-half of the retrieved documents were targeted exclusively at health centres, and only one-fifth addressed the dangers that might occur at home. With the growing number of oral medications being approved in cancer treatment, the potential for the long-term administration of these drugs to cancer patients is expanding. The use of these drugs at home has the potential to expose family members and caregivers to them, either through direct contact with the drugs or indirectly by exposure to the parent compounds and/or their active metabolites in contaminated patients’ waste [86]. This is relevant since the manipulation of HD in this context requires an adequate strategic plan of intervention, monitoring and tracking.

It is important to keep in mind that exposure to risks for professionals, patients and their relatives may not only occur during the stay in the hospital; these risks also occur when HDs are used at home, where the precaution of the patients and caregivers can be more relaxed [20]. Although hospital infrastructure is no longer necessary in the Hospital at Home (Hospital Home Care Services), patient care remains complex [87].

Type of substance

The different guidelines use a heterogeneous terminology when referring to the types of substances addressed, mainly due to the evolution of the definition of HD. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the guidelines limit their recommendations to antineoplastic or cytotoxic drugs (both terms commonly used interchangeably in the literature to refer to drugs used in the treatment of cancer [85]). The main reason for this is linked to the fact that the risks associated with its manipulation are clearly defined because they are usually prepared in centralized pharmacy aseptic units.

However, according to the NIOSH definition [11] in 2004 that includes antineoplastic and other non-antineoplastic drugs, and particularly after the later update in 2014 of the NIOSH document [12], in which HDs are classified into three lists, a growing trend in the publication of guidelines tackling the concept of HDs can be noted. These new guidelines use a broader and more inclusive concept of HDs.

Conversely, guidelines addressing drugs widely used in the oncology field were taken into account (monoclonal anti-blockers [44,45], genes medicines [73]), which were not initially considered by NIOSH as HDs and whose manipulation has generated uncertainty and variability in clinical practice.

Likewise, guidelines covering agents that comprise HDs were contemplated since they deal more generally with the handling of dangerous substances (chemical agents [46,50], carcinogenic and/or mutagenic [62], biological agents [42], drugs prepared in pharmacy services [41] and high-risk medications [18]).

Stages in the management process of hazardous drugs

The guidelines were very heterogeneous regarding the stages described, likely because there is no international consensus on the phases that comprise the HD manipulation process. To illustrate this feature, we can note that although European authors consider actions such as staff training and/or patient education, medical surveillance and environmental and/or biological monitoring as stages of the process [26,65,74], their American colleagues consider these actions as administrative controls [88].

In general terms, the most frequently mentioned stages were those classified by the authors as stages with a risk of exposure. This is reasonable because elaboration and administration, along with waste management, are considered by NIOSH as the riskiest phases of the process for staff [11].

Special mention should be made about the stages regarding staff training and/or patient education and documentation, both of which are transversal stages affecting all phases of the process. Even without the risk of exposure, these stages were considered more profusely than other stages without risk of exposure, such as the stages of procedures for cleaning and care of the patient. This shows that both stages are fundamental to guarantee the quality of the HD handling process, in which all steps must be performed by qualified staff [89], following standard protocols and recording all the operations performed throughout the entire life of the HD. Through this recording, the full traceability of the process and the supervision of all the involved stages is facilitated. In this way, it will be possible to evaluate the system as a whole and to establish to which extent the actions comply with the established standards to indicate the points with a margin for improvement and to prevent hazards.

The verification procedures are necessary to evaluate the efficiency of a process and to ensure that there is an adequate control of all the possibilities of risk [90].

A benefit derived from computer-based systems is the support of repositories for the generated records that allow linking, verifying and evaluating data at any time, guaranteeing excellence in management control and traceability [91, 92]

Just one guide [74] covering all the stages of the HD handling process could be identified. This may have occurred because most recovered guides do not include one or several stages in which there is no risk of exposure. Nevertheless, these stages are not of lesser relevance and should also be addressed.

There was a general lack of environmental and/or biological monitoring in the guidelines. This may be due to the limited existence of analytical methods for the quantification of most HDs, both in biological and environmental samples. Currently, there are standardized methods to measure the concentration of just some anticancer drugs, whereas many others are available only in a research setting [65]. Conversely, in most cases, there are no reference standards for environmental exposure, so the interpretation of the results must be performed with caution, and measures must be taken to reduce exposure "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) [65, 93].

Limitations

This work only took into consideration documents provided in English or in Spanish. This set of languages provides a joint coverage of more than 90% of the existing literature in this area [8082] and includes coverage of many countries (organizations from many countries publish their documents in both English and their official language). Nevertheless, to ensure the best possible identification of main stages, guides in other languages were also consulted. Thus, guides in French [94,95], German [96] or Italian [9799] were considered, but, as the reader may note in Table 1, no new stages were identified.

The high rate of non-relevant articles in relation to the final selection made can be considered a possible limitation of this review. This may be due to the lack of descriptors (MeSH) specific to the "hazardous drug" concept. The lack of a specific MeSH term forced us to conduct the MEDLINE search in text format using the title and abstract fields. Moreover, the Web of Science and Scopus databases do not have a thesaurus, so the query must be performed in text format using the title, abstract and keywords field, preventing the use of descriptors. This disturbing "noise" from the retrieval point of view has been previously observed in other systematic reviews [100,101]. Likewise, there was publication bias because most references are part of the grey literature since they are reports produced by institutions of different natures and therefore are not indexed in bibliographic databases with scientific content [102].

Conclusions

Based on the above findings, we can conclude that no standardized informatics system was found to ensure quality management, traceability of processes and minimization of risks associated with these drugs. In the considered guidelines, no mention of computerized systems that guarantee the correct management of the HD process was identified.

From the authors’ point of view, it would be convenient to be at the disposal of ICT-based tools that allow a simple and complete configuration of management systems to tackle the prevention of risks associated with HDs. Moreover, further works and specific developments regarding the management and traceability of HDs that allow for their monitoring and evaluation must be generated.

References

  1. 1. Goodman LS, Wintrobe MM. Nitrogen mustard therapy; use of methyl-bis (beta163chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride and tris (beta-chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride for Hodgkin’s disease, lymphosarcoma, leukemia and certain allied and miscellaneous disorders. J Am Med Assoc. 1946;132(3):126–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1946.02870380008004 pmid:20997191
  2. 2. Falck K, Gröhn P, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Heinonen E, Holsti LR. Mutagenicity in urine of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Lancet. 1979;1(8128):1250–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1696736(79)91939-1 pmid:87722
  3. 3. Norppa H, Sorsa M, Vainio H, Gröhn P, Heinonen E, Holsti L, et al. Increased sister chromatid exchange frequencies in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic drugs. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1980;6(4):299–301. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.2605 pmid:7233118
  4. 4. Waksvik H, Klepp O, Brøgger A. Chromosome analyses of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Cancer Treat Rep. 1981;65(7–8):607–10. pmid:7248981
  5. 5. Anderson RW, Puckett WH Jr, Dana WJ, Nguyen TV, Theiss JC, Matney TS. Risk of handling injectable antineoplastic agents. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1982;39(11):1881–7. pmid:6756133
  6. 6. Nikula E, Kiviniitty K, Leisti J, Taskinen PJ. Chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of nurses handling cytostatic agents. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1984;10(2):71–4. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.2355 pmid:6382593
  7. 7. Guidelines for safe handling of cytotoxic drugs in pharmacy departments and hospital wards. Hosp Pharm. 1981;16(1):17–20. pmid:10249749
  8. 8. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic drugs in hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1985;42:131–7.
  9. 9. Yodaiken R, Bennett D. OSHA work-practice guidelines for personnel dealing with cytotoxic (antineoplastic) drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986;43(5):1193–204. pmid:3717176
  10. 10. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. ASHP technical assistance bulletin on handling cytotoxic and hazardous drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(5):1033–49. pmid:2186621
  11. 11. Burroughs GE, Connor TH, McDiarmid MA, Mead KR, Power LA, Reed LD. NIOSH Alert: preventing occupational exposure to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in health care settings [monograph on the Internet]. Atlanta, USA: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2004. Report: 2004–165 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/PoEScK
  12. 12. Connor TH, MacKenzie BA, DeBord DG, Trout DB, O’Callaghan JP. NIOSH List of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings 2014 [monograph on the Internet]. Atlanta, USA: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014. Report: 2014–138 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/8TKC4n
  13. 13. Erce A, editor. Preventing occupational exposure to cytotoxic and other hazardous drugs. European Policy Recommendations [monograph on the Internet]. Brussels, Belgium: Rodhe Public Policy; 2016 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/HWeLeB
  14. 14. Braun B, Riehle A, Donofrio K, Hazif H, Loeb JM. Improving patient and worker safety: Opportunities for synergy, collaboration and innovation [monograph on the Internet]. Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois USA: The Joint Commission; 2012 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/Y75UR2
  15. 15. Occupational and Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Controlling Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Drugs [monograph on the Internet]. Washington DC, USA: OSHA, Department of Labor; 2016 [cited 1 Jul 2017]. Available from: https://goo.gl/FQZ9Ta
  16. 16. Pan American Health Organization—World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO). Safe handling of hazardous chemotherapy drugs in limited-resource settings [monograph on the Internet]. Washington DC, USA: PAHO/WHO; 2013 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/zUoyFk
  17. 17. de Jong T, Pawlowska-Cyprysiak K, Hildt-Ciupińska K, Bos E, Nicolescu G, Trifu A, et al. Current and emerging occupational safety and health issues in the healthcare sector, including home and community care: European Risk Observatory Report [monograph on the Internet]. Luxembourg: European Union Publications Office; 2014 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/FMcZmG
  18. 18. Otero MJ, directora. Prácticas para mejorar la seguridad 203 de los medicamentos de alto riesgo [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo y Universidad de Salamanca; 2007 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/ZWa4Pc
  19. 19. Johnson PE, Dahlman G, Eng K, Garg R, Gottlieb S, Hoffman JM, et al. NCCN Oncology risk evaluation and mitigation strategies white paper: Recommendations for stakeholders. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2010;8(Suppl 7):S7–27. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0135 pmid:20947724
  20. 20. Martínez Gabarrón J, Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Bergue C. Information systems in clinical pharmacy applied to parenteral nutrition management and traceability: a systematic review. Farm Hosp. 2017;41(1):89–104. https://doi.org/10.7399/fh.2017.41.1.10610 pmid:28045654
  21. 21. Guardino Solá X. Prólogo. In: Poveda JL, coordinador. Monografías de farmacia hospitalaria y atención primaria: Medicamentos peligrosos [monograph on the Internet]. Barcelona, España: Bayer Hispania SL; 2016. p. 6–7 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/tNGnbN
  22. 22. Wanden-Berghe C, Sanz-Valero J. Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology. Br J Nutr. 2012;107(Suppl 2):S3–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512001432 22591902
  23. 23. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Biological monitoring in the workplace: A guide to its practical application to chemical exposure [monograph on the Internet]. 2nd edition. Richmond, United Kingdom: HSE; 1997. [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/pTCEkJ
  24. 24. Neuss MN, Gilmore TR, Belderson KM, Billett AL, Conti-Kalchik T, Harvey BE, et al. 2016 Updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy administration safety standards, including standards for pediatric oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(12):1262–71. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.017905 pmid:27868581
  25. 25. Connor TH, MacKenzie BA, DeBord DG, Trout DB, O’Callaghan JP. NIOSH List of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings, 2016 [monograph on the Internet]. Atlanta, USA: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Report: 2016–161 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from:https://goo.gl/ZwgMo5
  26. 26. Poveda JL, coordinador. Monografías de farmacia hospitalaria y atención primaria: Medicamentos peligrosos [monograph on the Internet]. Barcelona, España: Bayer Hispania SL; 2016 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/tNGnbN
  27. 27. Delgado Sánchez O, Guardino Sola X, Moreno Centeno E, Cerdós Lleti AC, Alonso Herreros JM, Gaspar Carreño M, et al. Medicamentos peligrosos. Medidas de prevención para su preparación y administración [monograph on the Internet]. Barcelona, España: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT); 2016 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/htZZLo
  28. 28. Lepe S, Forcen R, La Torre M, Martínez C, Álvarez MA, Fernández M, et al. Manipulación de medicamentos peligrosos en Servicio de Farmacia [monograph on the Internet]. Valencia, España: Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Conselleria de Sanitat i Salut Pública; 2016. Informe: UCE-HI-02 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/CycZko
  29. 29. Lepe S, Forcen R, La Torre MT, Martínez C, Álvarez MA, Fernández M, et al. Manipulación de medicamentos peligrosos fuera de las Unidades de Farmacia [monograph on the Internet]. Valencia, España: Servicio de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, Conselleria de Sanitat i Salut Pública; 2016. Informe: UCE-HI-02 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/csCgLi
  30. 30. García Salom P, coordinador. Guía para la adaptación de las Buenas Prácticas en la Preparación y Manipulación de Medicamentos en la Comunidad Valenciana (Instalaciones) [monograph on the Internet]. Valencia, España: Conselleria de Salut Univeral i Salut Pública, Generalitat Valenciana; 2016 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/AkVfPZ
  31. 31. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP). USP General Chapter <800> Hazardous Drugs–Handling in healthcare settings [monograph on the Internet]. Rockville, USA: USP; 2017 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/HnCMWA
  32. 32. Tomkins J. Ensuring Health Care Worker Safety When Handling Hazardous Drugs: The Joint Position Statement from the Oncology Nursing Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(4):278–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2015.004978 pmid:26036264
  33. 33. Easty AC, Coakley N, Cheng R, Cividino M, Savage P, Tozer R, et al. Safe handling of cytotoxics: guideline recommendations. Curr Oncol. 2015;22(1):e27–37. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.2151 pmid:25684994
  34. 34. Spark P, Dalton C, Rowland S, Murch C, Glenn M. Procedure for handling of cytotoxics during pregnancy. Wales, United Kingdom: Local Health Board, Cardiff and Vale University; 2015. Report: UHB 039 version 2.
  35. 35. Guardino Solá X. Exposición laboral a compuestos citostáticos: sistemas seguros para su preparación [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT); 2015 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/tLMkR3
  36. 36. Poveda JL, Zamudio A, Cobos JL, Muedra M, Aparicio J, Barragán MB, et al. Documento de Consenso de Sociedades Científicas: Seguridad del paciente y del profesional sanitario en la preparación y administración de medicinas peligrosas [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Sociedades Científicas Españolas; 2015 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/gvzRST
  37. 37. Goldspiel B, Hoffman JM, Griffith NL, Goodin S, DeChristoforo R, Montello CM, et al. ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors with chemotherapy and biotherapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(8):e6–35. https://doi.org/10.2146/sp150001 pmid:25825193
  38. 38. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Safe Handling of cytotoxic drugs in the workplace [monograph on the Internet]. London, United Kingdom: Health and Safety Executive (HSE); [cited 1 Jul 2017]. Available from: https://goo.gl/PTtDGv
  39. 39. British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA). Hazardous Drug Safe Handling Standards [monograph on the Internet]. Vancouver, Canadá: BCCA; 2014. Report: Policy V-10 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/pfdwuj
  40. 40. Arce Valladres J, Arenaza Peña A, Barrueco Fernández N, Cabrerizo Escribano E, Colás Jiménez V, Diez Viñas V, et al. Guía de buenas prácticas para trabajadores profesionalmente expuestos a agentes citostáticos [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Escuela Nacional de Medicina del Trabajo, Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2014 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/3iJb1p
  41. 41. Casaus Lara ME, coordinadora. Guía de buenas prácticas de preparación de medicamentos en servicios de farmacia hospitalaria [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Subdirección General de Calidad de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios, Dirección General de Cartera Básica de Servicio del SNS y Farmacia, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad; 2014 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/uBx8fR
  42. 42. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Guía técnica para la evaluación y prevención de los riesgos relacionados con la exposición a agentes biológicos [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: INSHT; 2014 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/LH1WDo
  43. 43. American Society of Health System Pharmacists. ASHP 286 guidelines on compounding sterile preparations. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(2):145–66. https://doi.org/10.2146/sp140001 pmid:24375608
  44. 44. Alexander M, King J, Bajel A, Doecke C, Fox P, Lingaratnam S, et al. Australian consensus guidelines for the safe handling of monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment by healthcare personnel. Intern Med J. 2014;44(10):1018–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.12564 pmid:25302720
  45. 45. Cancer pharmacists group (CPG). Position Statement: Safe handling of monoclonal antibodies in healthcare settings [monograph on the Internet]. Camperdown, Australia: Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA); 2013 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/dbbBnt
  46. 46. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Guía técnica para la evaluación y prevención de los riesgos relacionados con los agentes químicos presentes en los lugares de trabajo [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: INSHT; 2013 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/iQ2y38
  47. 47. European Society of Oncology Pharmacy (ESOP). Quality Standard for the Oncology Pharmacy Service with Commentary (Quapos 5) [monograph on the Internet]. Hamburg, Germany: ESOP; 2013 [cited 3 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/RYbyvT
  48. 48. The Quality Unit, National Health Service (NHS) Scotland. Guidance for the safe delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy [monograph on the Internet]. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: National Health Service (NHS) of Scotland, Scottish Goverment; 2012. Report: CEL 30 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/mels/CEL2012_30.pdf
  49. 49. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Guía técnica para la utilización por los trabajadores de equipos de protección individual [monograph on the Internet]. 2a edición. Madrid, España: INSHT; 2012 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/76EsqQ
  50. 50. Cohen Gómez E. NTP 929: Ropa de Protección contra productos químicos [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT); 2012. Informe: Nota Técnica de Prevención 929 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/27fZgX
  51. 51. Pérez Fidalgo JA, García Fabregat L, Cervantes A, Margulies A, Vidall C, Roila F, et al. Management of chemotherapy extravasation: ESMO—EONS clinical practice guidelines. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(5):528–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2012.09.004 23304728 pmid:23304728
  52. 52. Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire Cancer Services. ASWCS Policy for the Treatment of Extravasation Injury. Bristol, United Kingdom: Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire Cancer Services (ASWCS); 2012.
  53. 53. Goodin S, Griffith N, Chen B, Chuk K, Daouphars M, Doreau C, et al. Safe handling of oral chemotherapeutic agents in clinical practice: recommendations from an international pharmacy panel. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.7.1.e7 pmid:21532802
  54. 54. Huber C. The safe handling of hazardous drugs. Am J Nurs. 2010;110(10):61–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000389679.57273.c1 pmid:20881751
  55. 55. Cercós Lletí AC, Esteban Mensua MJ, Jiménez Pulido I. Actuación ante derrames de citotóxicos y exposiciones agudas: Procedimiento normalizado de trabajo [monograph on the Internet]. España: Fundación Grupo Español para el Desarrollo de la Farmacia Oncológica (GEDEFO); 2010 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/5EHpmq
  56. 56. Chaffee BW, Armitstead JA, Benjamin BE, Cotugno MC, Forrey RA, Hintzen BL, et al. Guidelines for the safe handling of hazardous drugs: consensus recommendations. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67(18):1545–6. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp100138 pmid:20811033
  57. 57. Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire Cancer Services (ASWCS) Network Nurse Group. Network Policy for the prescribing, handling and administration of chemotherapy. Bristol, United Kingdom: Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire Cancer Services (ASWCS); 2010 p. 1–24. Report: version 4.0.a.
  58. 58. Carrington C, Stone L, Koczwara B, Searle C, Siderov J, Stevenson B, et al. The Clinical Oncological Society of Australia (COSA) guidelines for the safe prescribing, dispensing and administration of cancer chemotherapy. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2010;6(3):220–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-7563.2010.01321.x pmid:20887505
  59. 59. Russi M, Buchta WG, Swift M, Budnick LD, Hodgson MJ, Berube D, et al. Guidance for Occupational Health Services in Medical Centers. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(11):1e–18e. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181bb0d7c pmid:19858746
  60. 60. Jacobson JO, Polovich M, McNiff KK, LeFebvre KB, Cummings C, Galioto M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009;36(6):651–8. https://doi.org/10.1188/09.ONF.651-658 pmid:19887353
  61. 61. Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology (CAPho). Standards of Practice for Oncology Pharmacy in Canada. Vancouver, Canada: CAPhO; 2009. Report: version 2.
  62. 62. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Guía técnica para la evaluación y prevención de los riesgos relacionados con la exposición durante el trabajo a agentes cancerígenos mutágenos [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: INSHT; 2009 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/VPudgZ
  63. 63. Shulman LN, Miller RS, Ambinder EP, Yu PP, Cox JV. Principles of Safe Practice Using an Oncology EHR System for Chemotherapy Ordering, Preparation, and Administration, Part 1 of 2. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(4):203–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.0847501 pmid:29447501
  64. 64. Shulman LN, Miller RS, Ambinder EP, Yu PP, Cox JV. Principles of Safe Practice Using an Oncology EHR System for Chemotherapy Ordering, Preparation, and Administration, Part 2 of 2. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(5):254–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.0857501 pmid:29452528
  65. 65. Gallant C, coordinator. Prevention Guide: Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs [monograph on the Internet]. Montreal, Canada: Association paritaire pour la santé et la securité du travail du secteur affaires sociales (ASSTSAS); 2008 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/YXPB7m
  66. 66. Connor TH, Reed LD, Polovich M, McDiarmid MA, Leone M, Power L, et al. Personal Protective EquiHDent for Health Care Workers Who Work with Hazardous Drugs [monograph on the Internet]. Cincinnati, USA: NIOSH, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); 2008. Report: 2009–106 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/TJLrwD
  67. 67. European Society of Oncology Pharmnacy (ESOP). Recommendations for transport of highly potent drugs [monograph on the Internet]. Hamburg, Germany: European Society of Oncology Pharmacy (ESOP); 2008 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/qSM122
  68. 68. Wengström Y, Margulies A; European Oncology Nursing Society Task Force. European Oncology Nursing Society extravasation guidelines. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12(4):357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2008.07.003 pmid:18765210
  69. 69. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP). General Chapter <797> Pharmaceutical compoundings-sterile preparations. Rockville, USA: USP; 2008. Report: USP 31-NF 26.
  70. 70. Ohio Nurses Association. Administration of IV chemotherapy & biotherapy agents. Ohio Nurses Rev. 2008;83(1):6–7. pmid:18410049
  71. 71. Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA) Committee 370 of Specialty Practice in Cancer Services. SHPA Standards of Practice for the Transportation of Cytotoxic Drugs from Pharmacy Departments. J Pharm Pract Res. 2007;37(3):234–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2055-2335.2007.tb00753.x
  72. 72. Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA) Committee of Specialty Practice in Cancer Services. SHPA Standards of Practice for the Provision of Oral Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Cancer. J Pharm Pract Res. 2007;37(2):149–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2055-377 2335.2007.tb00044.x
  73. 73. Vulto AG, Stoner N, Balásova H, Cercos AC, Hoppe-Tichy T, Vinent Genestar JL, et al. Guidance on the pharmacy handling of gene medicines. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2007;13(5):29–39.
  74. 74. International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practicioners Standards Committee. ISOPP Standards of Practice: Safe Handling of Cytotoxics. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2007;13 Suppl:1–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155207082350 pmid:17933809
  75. 75. Guardino Solá X, Rosell Farrás MG, Galisteo Manzanares M. NTP 740: Exposición laboral a citostáticos en el ámbito sanitario [monograph on the Internet]. Madrid, España: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT); 2006 [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/t56tAL
  76. 76. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(12):1172–91. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp050529
  77. 77. Adams L, Doherty J, Farrer K, Galletly C, Gent P, Healy S, et al. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in Grampian, Orkney and Shetland. Aberdeen, United Kingdom: NHS Grampian; 2006. Report: GUH/CCG/GUI/0001.
  78. 78. Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA) Committee of Specialty Practice in Oncology. SHPA Standards of Practice for the Safe Handling of Cytotoxic Drugs in Pharmacy Departments. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2055-3962335.2007.tb00753.x
  79. 79. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP). General Chapter <795> Pharmaceutical compounding-non sterile preparations [monograph on the Internet]. Rockville, USA: USP; 2014. Report: Revision Bulletin [cited 2 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/CHYbq2
  80. 80. Sanz-Valero J, Tomás-Casterá V, Tomás-Gorriz V. Bibliometric study of the production and use of the Farmacia Hospitalaria journal (2004–2012). Farm Hosp. 2014;38(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.7399/FH.2014.38.1.1153 pmid:24483853
  81. 81. Tomás-Casterá V, Sanz-Valero J, Juan-Quilis V. Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production and consumption on nutrition journals indexed in SciELO network. Nutr Hosp. 2013;28(3):969–70. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2013.28.3.6463 pmid:23848128
  82. 82. Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Berghe C. Bibliometric analysis of Spanish scientific production indexed in MEDLINE, about hospital-based home care services. Hosp Domic. 2017;1(1):21–34. https://doi.org/10.22585/hospdomic.v1i1.3
  83. 83. Hon C-Y, Barzan C, Astrakianakis G. Identification of Knowledge Gaps Regarding Healthcare Workers’ Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs: Review of Literature, North America versus Europe. Saf Health Work. 2014;5(4):169–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.06.001 pmid:25516807
  84. 84. Franco-López Á, Sanz-Valero J, Culebras JM. Impact factor 413 is no longer the gold standard; the San Francisco declaration on research assessment. JONNPR J Negat No Posit Results. 2017;2(5):173–6. https://doi.org/10.19230/jonnpr.1392
  85. 85. Mathias PI, MacKenzie BA, Toennis CA, Connor TH. Survey of guidelines and current practices for safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs used in 24 countries. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017; [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155217726160 pmid:28841099
  86. 86. Cass Y, Connor TH, Tabachnik A. Safe handling of oral antineoplastic medications: Focus on targeted therapeutics in the home setting. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2016;23(5):350–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155216637217 pmid:27009803
  87. 87. Massa Domínguez B. Hospital-based home care services in the 21st century. Hosp Domic. 2017;1(1):7. https://doi.org/10.22585/hospdomic.v1i1.8
  88. 88. Power LA, Polovich M. Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: reviewing Standards for Worker Protection. Pharm Pract News. 2016;16(Special Edition):23–36.
  89. 89. Lucas MA, Connor TH. Hazardous drugs: the silent stalker of healthcare workers? Training, education are key to preventing exposures. The Synergist. 2015;(1):22–6.
  90. 90. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems–Requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2015.
  91. 91. Alonso Rorís VM, Álvarez Sabucedo LM, Wanden-Berghe C, Santos Gago JM, Sanz-Valero J. Towards a Mobile-Based Platform for Traceability Control and Hazard Analysis in the Context of Parenteral Nutrition: Description of a Framework and a Prototype App. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jun 7;5(2):e57. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.4907 pmid:27269189
  92. 92. Bernabeu Soria B, Mateo García M, Wanden-Berghe C, Cervera Peris M, Piñeiro Corrales G, Sanz-Valero J. Development of the management for parenteral nutrition traceability in a standard hospital. Farm Hosp. 2015;39(6):358–68. https://doi.org/10.7399/fh.2015.39.6.9689 pmid:26618380
  93. 93. Vyas N, Yiannakis D, Turner A, Sewell GJ. Occupational exposure to anti-cancer drugs: A review of effects of new technology. J Oncol Pract. 2014;20(4):278–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155213498630 pmid:23975555
  94. 94. Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (AFSSAPS). Bonnes pratiques de préparation [monograph on the Internet]. Saint-Denis, France; 2007 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/6RjJDR
  95. 95. Groupe de travail Group of Evaluation and Research for Protection Areas under Control (GERPAC)-EUROPHARMAT. Guide de Recommandations de Dispositifs Médicaux. Preparation & Administration des Médicaments à risque pour le personnel et l’environnement [monograph on the Internet]. Toulouse, France: Groupe de travail GERPAC-EUROPHARMAT; 2007 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/qTYKfN
  96. 96. Ausschuss für Gefahrstoffe—AGS-Geschäftsführung—Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA). Technische Regeln für Gefahrstoffe (TRGS) 525 Gefahrstoffe in Einrichtungen der medizinischen Versorgung [monograph on the Internet]. Germany: BAuA; 2014 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/T44mXf
  97. 97. Greco G, Giori M, Quarisa R. Manipolazione dei farmaci antiblastici [monograph on the Internet Internet]. Quesiti Clinico-Assistenziali. 2009;1(11):1–15 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/2N9BPG
  98. 98. Anzidei P, Barra MI, Belliato R, Bergamasco S, Brusco A, Capussotto C, et al. La sicurezza in ospedale: strumenti di valutazione e gestione del rischio [monograph on the Internet]. Roma: Instituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro e le malattie professionali (INAIL)-Contarp; 2012 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/4G7yKv
  99. 99. Ministero della Sanità. Dipartimento della Prevenzione. Commissione Oncologica Nazionales. PROVVEDIMENTO 5 agosto 1999—Documento di linee-guida per la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori esposti a chemioterapici antiblastici in ambiente sanitario (Repertorio atti. n. 376) [monograph on the Internet]. Gazzetta Ufficiale 1999;236 [cited 8 Mar 2018]. Available from: https://goo.gl/gSQKVC
  100. 100. Domingo-Pueyo A, Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Berghe C. Effects of occupational exposure to chromium and its compounds: a systematic review. Arch Prev Riesgos Laborales. 2014;17(3):142–53. https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2014.17.3.03 pmid:25022532
  101. 101. Domingo-Pueyo A, Sanz-Valero J, Wanden-Berghe C. Disorders induced by direct occupational exposure to noise: Systematic review. Noise Health. 2016;18(84):229–39. https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.192479 pmid:27762251
  102. 102. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomized trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):MR000035. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub pmid:25271098