Background and aims Simplified vaccine preparation steps would save time and reduce the potential of mishandlings.
The aim of the study was to assess vaccine preparation time with fully liquid hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Lyon, France) versus hexavalent vaccine that needs reconstitution (DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium).
Methods 96 Health Care Professionals (HCPs) participated in a randomised, cross-over, open-label, Time and Motion study in Belgium (2014). HCPs prepared each vaccine (time recorded using video equipment) in a cross-over manner with a wash-out period of 3–5 min. An independent nurse assessed preparation mishandlings by systematic review of the videos. HCPs satisfaction and preference were evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire.
Results Average preparation time was 36 seconds for DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T versus 70.5 seconds for DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib (p ≤ 0.001). Extrapolated yearly time savings was estimated to 664 days/year (based on 520 000 hexavalent vaccines administered per year in Belgium). On 192 preparations, 57 mishandlings occurred: 47 in the DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib group (including one missing reconstitution of Hib component), 10 in the DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T group. 71.9% of HCPs were very or somewhat satisfied with ease of handling of both vaccines; 66.7% and 67.7% were very or somewhat satisfied with speed of preparation in DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T and DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib groups, respectively. Almost all HCPs (97.6%) stated they would prefer the use of DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T vaccine in their daily practice.
Conclusions Fully liquid DTaP-IPV-HB-PRP-T vaccine offers significant time gains for vaccine preparation. It has the potential to reduce mishandlings and could therefore be very useful in daily practice.