Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription‐dispensation systems

Assessment of Automation Models in Hospital Pharmacy: Systematic Review of Technologies, Practices, and Clinical Impacts

Medication management in hospitals is a complex process that encompasses every step from prescription to administration, involving multiple healthcare professionals. This process is prone to various errors that can compromise patient safety and generate significant human and financial costs. Automation in hospital pharmacies represents a major advancement, enhancing patient safety, optimizing professional practices, and reducing hospital expenses. This study aims to analyze the different types of automation systems used in hospital pharmacies, assess the impact of automation, and explore its benefits as well as the challenges and limitations associated with its implementation. A literature search was conducted using the ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Scopus databases, covering the period from 1992 to 2024. A total of 129 relevant articles related to the automation of medication preparation and distribution, as well as its challenges and perspectives were included in this study. Automated technologies significantly contribute to reducing medication errors, strengthening traceability, optimizing inventory management, and alleviating the workload of healthcare professionals. However, challenges persist, particularly in terms of costs, integration with existing processes, and staff training. The use of artificial intelligence offers promising prospects for improving the accuracy and operational efficiency of automation systems.

Evaluating the impact of an automated drug retrieval cabinet and robotic dispensing system in a large hospital central pharmacy

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of implementing 2 technologies in succession, the Carousel system and XR2 robot, in a hospital central pharmacy. The study examined the technologies' impact on workload shifted from fully human-involved, labor-intensive filling from shelves to Carousel and/or XR2, prevention of filling errors, and efficiency.

METHODS

Implementation occurred in 3 phases from August 2021 through October 2022. In phase I, medications were manually filled from the shelves for immediate doses and automated dispensing cabinet stock. RobotRx was used for unit-dose (UD) carts. In phase II, the Carousel system was introduced, while RobotRx was used for UD carts. In phase III, the XR2 robot was added and RobotRx was decommissioned. Epic data and time studies were utilized and analyzed with ANOVA.

RESULTS

Over the 3 phases of implementation, workload shifted away from filling from the shelves, with 2,479, 1,044, and 864 orders filled from the shelves for phase I through phase III, respectively. The Carousel workload was 1,234 orders (phase II) and 348 orders (phase III). Nearly 71% of the workload was shifted to the XR2. The overall filling error (prevented) rate did not significantly change from phase I to phase II, remaining at 0.5%. In comparison, the error rate significantly decreased to 0.41% in phase III. Use of the Carousel system resulted in a significant reduction in filling errors compared to manual filling from the shelves. Use of the XR2 robot resulted in a filling error rate of 0%. The savings in time when using both Carousel and XR2 led to a decrease in full-time equivalents of 0.77 for pharmacists and 1.76 for pharmacy technicians.

CONCLUSION

Carousel and/or XR2 significantly shifted workload from manual filling to automated technologies, decreased filling errors, and improved efficiency, reducing pharmacist and technician workload. Time saved could allow staff to spend more time on patient-centric tasks.

Automation of in-hospital pharmacy dispensing: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The current systematic review (SR) was undertaken to identify and summarise the published literature reporting on the clinical and economic value of automated in-hospital pharmacy services with a primary focus on systems supporting the dispensing of medicines.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 17 December 2017 to identify English-language publications investigating any automated dispensing systems (ADSs) in the inpatient setting to include central pharmacy and ward-based systems.

RESULTS

4320 publications were screened by title and abstract and 45 of 175 full publications screened were included. Grey literature searching identified an additional three publications. Therefore, 48 publications relating to ADSs were eligible for inclusion. Although a relatively large evidence base was identified as part of the current SR, the eligible studies were inconsistent in terms of their design and the format of reporting of outcomes. The studies demonstrate that both pharmacy and ward-based ADSs offer benefits over traditional manual dispensing methods in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. The primary benefits following implementation of an ADS include reductions in medication errors, medication administration time and costs. Studies examining optimisation/inventory management strategies/refill programmes for these systems suggest that optimal implementation of the ADS is required to ensure that clinical success and economic benefits are maximised.

CONCLUSIONS

The published evidence suggests positive impacts of ADS and should encourage hospitals to invest in automation, with a global strategy to improve the reliability and the efficiency of the medication process. However, one of the key findings of the current SR is the need for further data from adequately powered studies reporting clinically relevant outcomes which would allow for robust, evidence-based recommendations on the return on investment of the technologies. These studies would probably contribute to a larger adoption of these technologies by European hospitals.

Safety, time and cost evaluation of automated and semi-automated drug distribution systems in hospitals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review automated and semi-automated drug distribution systems (DDSs) in hospitals and to evaluate their effectiveness on medication safety, time and costs of medication care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus, CINAHL and EMB Reviews covering the period 2005 to May 2016. Studies were included if they (1) concerned technologies used in the drug distribution and administration process in acute care hospitals and (2) reported medication safety, time and cost-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Key outcomes, conclusions and recommendations of the included studies (n=30) were categorised according to the dispensing method: decentralised (n=19 studies), centralised (n=6) or hybrid system (n=5). Patient safety improved (n=27) with automation, and reduction in medication errors was found in all three systems. Centralised and decentralised systems were reported to support clinical pharmacy practice in hospitals. The impact of the medication distribution system on time allocation such as labour time, staffing workload or changes in work process was explored in the majority of studies (n=24). Six studies explored economic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

No medication distribution system was found to be better than another in terms of outcomes assessed in the studies included in the systematic review. All DDSs improved medication safety and quality of care, mainly by decreasing medication errors. However, many error types still remained-for example, prescribing errors. Centralised and hybrid systems saved more time than a decentralised system. Costs of medication care were reduced in decentralised systems mainly in high-expense units. However, no evidence was shown that implementation of decentralised systems in small units would save costs. More comparable evidence on the benefits and costs of decentralised and hybrid systems should be available. Changes in processes due to a new DDS may create new medication safety risks; to minimise these risks, training and reallocation of staff resources are needed.

Effects of health information technology on patient outcomes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies assessing the effects of health information technology (health IT) on patient safety outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement methods. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health (CINAHL), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from 2001 to June 2012, were searched. Descriptive and comparative studies were included that involved use of health IT in a clinical setting and measured effects on patient safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Data on setting, subjects, information technology implemented, and type of patient safety outcomes were all abstracted. The quality of the studies was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers (scored from 0 to 10). A total of 69 studies met inclusion criteria. Quality scores ranged from 1 to 9. There were 25 (36%) studies that found benefit of health IT on direct patient safety outcomes for the primary outcome measured, 43 (62%) studies that either had non-significant or mixed findings, and 1 (1%) study for which health IT had a detrimental effect. Neither the quality of the studies nor the rate of randomized control trials performed changed over time. Most studies that demonstrated a positive benefit of health IT on direct patient safety outcomes were inpatient, single-center, and either cohort or observational trials studying clinical decision support or computerized provider order entry.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Many areas of health IT application remain understudied and the majority of studies have non-significant or mixed findings. Our study suggests that larger, higher quality studies need to be conducted, particularly in the long-term care and ambulatory care settings.

Measuring the severity of prescribing errors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital prescribing error rates.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL (January 1985-January 2013).

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies that reported the detection and rate of prescribing errors in prescriptions for adult and/or pediatric hospital inpatients, or elaborated on the properties of severity assessment tools used by these studies. Studies not published in English, or that evaluated errors for only one disease or drug class, one route of administration, or one type of prescribing error, were excluded, as were letters and conference abstracts. One reviewer screened all abstracts and obtained complete articles. A second reviewer assessed 10 % of all abstracts and complete articles to check reliability of the screening process.

APPRAISAL

Tools were appraised for country and method of development, whether the tool assessed actual or potential harm, levels of severity assessed, and results of any validity and reliability studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of 107 studies measuring prescribing error rates included an assessment of severity. Forty tools were identified that assessed severity, only two of which had acceptable reliability and validity. In general, little information was given on the method of development or ease of use of the tools, although one tool required four reviewers and was thus potentially time consuming.

LIMITATIONS

The review was limited to studies written in English. One of the review authors was also the author of one of the tools, giving a potential source of bias.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of severity assessment tools are used in the literature. Developing a basis of comparison between tools would potentially be helpful in comparing findings across studies. There is a potential need to establish a less time-consuming method of measuring severity of prescribing error, with acceptable international reliability and validity.

Polypharmacy and food-drug interactions among older persons: a review

Polypharmacy is generally defined as the use of 5 or more prescription medications on a regular basis. The average number of prescribed and over-the-counter medications used by community-dwelling older adults per day in the United States is 6 medications, and the number used by institutionalized older persons is 9 medications. Almost all medications affect nutriture, either directly or indirectly, and nutriture affects drug disposition and effect. This review will highlight the issues surrounding polypharmacy, food-drug interactions, and the consequences of these interactions for the older adult.