USP Training: Direct Oversight Interpretation vs In Process/Final Checks

PLEASE NOTE:   Posts made to this forum should not be considered as the expressed opinions of, nor should be considered endorsed by, the Medication Safety Officer’s Society (MSOS) or the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP). 

Make sure your email is up-to-date
In order to continue to receive updates from MSOS, as well as forum posts and other valuable information as a member of MSOS, please be sure to update your email address with us, whenever it changes. If you need assistance doing so, please send an email to jrufo@ismp.org

1 post / 0 new
Megan Elizabeth...
Megan Elizabeth Fragale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 hour ago
Joined: 02/14/2022 - 12:55
USP Training: Direct Oversight Interpretation vs In Process/Final Checks

Colleagues responsible for USP Implementation,

My board of pharmacy is not weighing in on the interpretation of sterile compounding direct oversight versus in process and final checks. With the training requirements differing for compounders, those who provide direct oversight, and those who provide in process checks, I am seeking opinions on specifically the distinction between direct oversight and in-process/final checks.

Pharmacists at my hospital sites generally only would compound immediate use (and thus would be competency trained accordingly). However, those pharmacists may perform the traditional checking of technician compounding on site. Are you considering this direct oversight or in-process/final checks?

Thank you,
Megan Fragale, PharmD, MS, BCPS
Medication Safety Officer
Skagit Regional Health