Comparison of automated and manual methods of syringe filling

A study to measure the time and cost associated with an automated and a manual method of syringe filling is reported. A stopwatch was used to measure the time needed by an experienced pharmacy technician to prepare batches of 200 syringes of each of seven drugs by a manual method and an automated method, the Multi-Ad Fluid Dispensing System. For each drug and method, time-and-motion data were collected during the preparation of four batches. The accuracy of each method was determined by dividing the actual by the expected number of syringes filled per batch. Material costs were calculated by summing the contract costs of the necessary equipment. The total cost of each method was determined by adding the labor and material costs. For all the drugs, the mean total time required to prepare one batch of syringes by the automated method was significantly less than that for the manual method. There was no significant difference in accuracy between methods for any of the drugs. The annual labor costs of the automated and manual methods were $4056 and $5761, respectively, and the annual material costs were $3364 and $2260, respectively. The total annual cost of the automated method was $7419, compared with $8021 for the manual method. The Multi-Ad system was significantly faster and somewhat less costly overall than a manual method for batch preparation of syringes of seven drugs.     

Visual field expansion in patients with retinitis pigmentosa

BACKGROUND: To determine the effectiveness of using spectacle-mounted prisms for field expansion in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP). METHODS: Vision-related activities of daily living (V-ADL) questionnaire scores and functional visual field score (FFS) measurements were conducted before and after a one-month trial of spectacle-mounted prisms in those patients with RP who had residual central visual fields of less than 10 degrees. RESULTS: 16 patients were recruited who met study inclusion criteria. Mean V-ADL and FFS at baseline were 67.6 (73%) and 22.9 (46%), respectively. After a 1-month trial using spectacle-mounted prisms, V-ADL and FFS demonstrated significant improvement to 73.4 (80%, p < 0.05) and 27.0 (54%, p < 0.001), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Spectacle-mounted prisms effectively create visual field expansion and noticeable spatial orientation benefits in patients with RP. This may provide an adjunctive tool in low vision rehabilitation and should be considered in all cases with RP with less than 10 degrees of visual field.