RESUMEN
Flowcharts used for hospital protocols have a series of ambiguities and limitations in order to express some types of information. In this article, a notation proposal for flowcharts that partially avoids these problems is presented. This new notation is an adaptation of BPMNE2, an extension of the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), which allows direct modelling of procedures that follow the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) model. The new notation has been validated in the hospital context, specifically in the field of hazardous drugs (HDs). To measure usability from the perspective of the health staff and auditors, the System Usability Scale (SUS) was used. A total of 47 experts took part in the assessment, resulting in a SUS score of 71, that corresponds to an acceptable level of usability. The feedback provided by these participants allows us to discover benefits and drawbacks of the proposal. Also, it is noteworthy that 76.6% of professionals prefer to migrate to the new notation from the ISO 5807:1985 notation, the most commonly used model. In addition to the direct benefits of this notation from the human point of view, its machine-understandable nature provides the required support for its integration into software tools for intelligent monitoring and auditing.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos Clínicos , Programas Informáticos , Flujo de Trabajo , Hospitales , HumanosRESUMEN
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.