Background Good hospital practices recommends the nominative delivery of the medicinal product to the patient. To fulfil this requirement, in our hospital, we use two methods of unit repackaging of dry non-unit oral forms: the Eticonform^® software and the Euraf^® automaton.

Purpose Our objective is to compare these methods of repackaging in terms of time, non-conformity and cost of production.

Material and methods A prospective study was carried out from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017. The data were extracted using the Euraf and Eticonform software. For each technique, a measurement of the average time per unit was made. We also recorded the number of units lost during production and the number of reconditioned units outdated. An analysis of nonconformities was also made. Production costs were calculated by integrating personal time (operator, preparer and pharmacist), operating costs (machine depreciation and maintenance, computer, electricity and cleaning) and costs of consumables.

Results During the study period, 47 683 units of 161 specialties were over-labelled using the Eticonform software: 90 966 units of 96 specialties were produced by the Euraf automaton.

Over-labelling by the Eticonform software did not result in non-conformity, expired unity or even lost units. The average time per unit was 6 s for Eticonform over-labelling and 15 s per unit for Euraf production. The average cost of production was 0. 11 euros for the Eticonform method and 0. 21 euros for the Euraf technic.

The Euraf method generated 1580 units (1.74%) expired units, ie €126 of financial loss and 1.5 kg of waste. The non-conformities noted with the Euraf method are: loss of units by crushing (165 units or 0.2%) and labelling errors.

Conclusion Eticonform is preferable for reasons of cost, time and retention of the expiration date. However, it can only be used for specialties in the form of blister packs.

No conflict of interest