Introduction: The demand for oncology pharmacy services is set to increase as the burden of cancer rises in sub-Saharan Africa. Oncology pharmacists may be exposed to antineoplastic drugs (ADs) and need comprehensive health and safety guidelines. The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the local oncology pharmacy practice standards, by critically evaluating them against international best practice standards.
Methods: We compared the Independent Clinical Oncology Network (ICON) administration of ADs standards resource document (ICON standards) and Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) standards with the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Standards for the safe handling of cytotoxics, and the Quality standard for the oncology pharmacy service (QuaPos), using 10 domains: transport of ADs, working arrangements, education and training, engineering controls, use of personal protective equipment, risk management, medical monitoring of personnel, cleaning procedures, accident management and documentation, labelling and checking procedures.
Results: The ICON standards align closely with international best practice standards, but the GPP standards focus only briefly on the compounding of ADs.The GPP standards are outdated and some of the stipulations are erroneous. Oncology pharmacists would do better to adhere to the more comprehensive ICON standards, although these standards also need to be updated in line with best practice.
Conclusion: Revising and improving both these local standards in consultation with key role players in the oncology pharmacy industry will go a long way in protecting the health and safety of oncology pharmacists in South Africa.
Keywords: Hazardous drugs; anti-neoplastic drugs; critical literature appraisal; oncology pharmacy standards/guidelines.