Dreiman R K
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1980 Oct;37(10):1342-6.
Labor, equipment, and materials costs for six methods of reconstituting cephalothin sodium piggyback doses (System 1--Pharm-Aid Fluid Dispensing System + manufacturer's bottle; System 2--transfer unit + manufacturer's bottle; System 3--pressure infuser + manufacturer's bottle; System 4--gravity flow + manufacturer's bottle; System 5--transfer needle + partial-fill bottle; and System 6--Pharm-Aide Fluid Dispensing System + partial-fill bottle) were compared. Individual 2-g doses of cephalothin were prepared in batches of 20 doses by a technician. Times for assembling equipment and supplies, reconstituting and transferring the antibiotic, and fitting the container with protective caps were measured five times for each system. Mean total personnel time was lowest for System 2 and highest for System 5. Pull-tab caps (Burron) were fitted more quickly than were caps with the peel-around design (Cutter). System 3 had the lowest material cost followed in order by Systems 4, 1, 2, 5 and 6. Labor costs did not influence the rank order established by material costs. Systems 3 and 4 were preferred because they required the least manipulation and were lowest in total expense.
比较了六种重组头孢噻吩钠静脉滴注剂量方法（系统1——Pharm - Aid流体分配系统 + 制造商的瓶子；系统2——转移装置 + 制造商的瓶子；系统3——压力输注器 + 制造商的瓶子；系统4——重力流 + 制造商的瓶子；系统5——转移针 + 部分填充瓶；以及系统6——Pharm - Aide流体分配系统 + 部分填充瓶）的人工、设备和材料成本。由一名技术人员批量制备20剂、每剂2克的头孢噻吩。对每个系统，测量组装设备和用品、重组和转移抗生素以及给容器安装保护帽的时间，共测量五次。系统2的平均总人工时间最短，系统5最长。拉环式瓶盖（Burron）的安装速度比环绕式瓶盖（Cutter）快。系统3的材料成本最低，其次依次是系统4、1、2、5和6。人工成本并未影响由材料成本确定的排名顺序。系统3和4更受青睐，因为它们所需的操作最少且总费用最低。
