Assessment of preparation time with fully-liquid versus non-fully liquid paediatric hexavalent vaccines. A time and motion study
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Vaccine / International Society for Vaccines. - Amsterdam
, p. 3976-3982
University of Antwerp
Background and aims: Simplified vaccine preparation steps would save time and reduce potential immunisation errors. The aim of the study was to assess vaccine preparation time with fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T, Sanofi Pasteur MSD) versus non-fully liquid hexavalent vaccine that needs reconstitution (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). Methods: Ninety-six Health Care Professionals (HCPs) participated in a randomised, cross-over, open-label, time and motion study in Belgium (2014). HCPs prepared each vaccine in a cross-over manner with a wash-out period of 3-5 min. An independent nurse assessed preparation time and immunisation errors by systematic review of the videos. HCPs satisfaction and preference were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire. Results: Average preparation time was 36 s for the fully-liquid vaccine and 70.5 s for the non-fully liquid vaccine. The time saved using the fully-liquid vaccine was 34.5s (p <= 0.001). On 192 preparations, 57 immunisation errors occurred: 47 in the non-fully liquid vaccine group (including one missing reconstitution of Hib component), 10 in the fully-liquid vaccine group. 71.9% of HCPs were very or somewhat satisfied with the ease of handling of both vaccines; 66.7% and 67.7% were very or somewhat satisfied with speed of preparation in the fully-liquid vaccine and the non-fully liquid vaccine groups, respectively. Almost all HCPs (97.6%) stated they would prefer the use of the fully-liquid vaccine in their daily practice. Conclusions: Preparation of a fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine can be completed in half the time necessary to prepare a non-fully liquid vaccine. The simplicity of the fully-liquid hexavalent vaccine preparation helps optimise reduction of immunisation errors. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).