Source avec lien : Annals of Work Exposures and Health, (En ligne). 10.1093/annweh/wxac035
L’objectif de cette étude était d’évaluer indirectement le risque d’exposition professionnelle aux médicaments antinéoplasiques dans deux hôpitaux en utilisant une surveillance environnementale, et de suggérer des moyens d’améliorer l’exposition des travailleurs de la santé.Une étude observationnelle des pratiques de soins sur les deux sites a été réalisée. Une campagne d’échantillonnage par frottis a ensuite été conçue pour étudier la contamination environnementale tout au long du processus de chimiothérapie : réception, stockage, préparation, transport, administration et zones d’élimination.
The risk of chronic exposure to antineoplastic agents in hospitals, mainly by skin contact with contaminated surfaces, is well established. The aim of this study was to assess indirectly the risk of occupational exposure to antineoplastics drugs at two hospitals by using an environmental monitoring, and to suggest ways of improving the exposure to healthcare workers.An observational study of care practices on both sites was carried out. A wipe sampling campaign was then designed to study environmental contamination throughout the chemotherapy process: receipt, storage, compounding, transport, administration, and elimination areas. Samples were analyzed by a validated LC-MS/MS method allowing trace quantification of cyclophosphamide. A guidance ‘safe value’ of 0.10 ng/cm2 was considered.A total of 293 samples were analyzed, of which 58% were found to be positive. In the compounding units, the drug vials were contaminated before [range = (non-quantifiable [NQ]-0.71) ng/cm2] and after cleaning procedure [(NQ-0.62) ng/cm2], particularly when the flip-off lid was removed during cleaning. The contamination found on manual preparations was operator-dependent: [non-detectable (ND)-3.51] ng/cm2 on infusion bag surfaces; (780.61–24 698.98) ng/cm2 on medication ports. In the case of automated preparations, the average contamination was higher on infusion bag surfaces [(2.43–36.86) ng/cm2] and lower on medication ports [(0.43–7.65) ng/cm2] than manual preparations. Contamination of the analytical control area was also highlighted. In the daily care unit, the contamination was located near the infusion area (armchairs, infusion stands, floor, and patient toilets), and varied somewhat between the two sites, especially on the floor with (0.46–27.32) compared to (ND-0.18) ng/cm2. We did not detect contamination on the transport boxes, on the door handles or in the disposal areas.The variability of contamination observed between the two sites can be explained in part by the difference in routine practices, especially training of the staff, and cleaning procedures. Findings were communicated to healthcare workers, and news interventions were implemented based on wipe sampling results. This study demonstrated a method for routine environmental monitoring and worker education as a strategy to reduce occupational exposure.