Assessment of technology-assisted technician verification of compounded intravenous sterile preparations versus pharmacist verification

PURPOSE

This study is an evaluation of technology-assisted technician verification (TATV) of the compounded sterile product (CSP) preparation process as an alternative to final verification by a pharmacist.

METHODS

A 2-phase, single-center noninferiority study was conducted to assess the accuracy and CSP processing time with TATV versus pharmacist verification. Phase I of the study was a validation of the internal pharmacist accuracy rate in which 2 pharmacists checked each CSP. In phase II, prepared CSPs were first checked by a technician and then checked by a pharmacist. Technicians were required to complete baseline credentialing and training requirements to participate in the study. The primary outcome was the error rate for the pharmacist check in phase I and the error rate of the technician check in phase II. Secondary outcomes included total verification time and total dose processing time in each phase. The Farrington-Manning test was used for noninferiority assessment of accuracy, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to detect a difference between the processing times.

RESULTS

A total of 4,000 doses were checked in each phase. Pharmacist accuracy was 99.600% in phase I, compared to TATV accuracy of 99.575% in phase II. TATV of CSPs was noninferior to pharmacist verification (absolute difference in accuracy, 0.025%; 95% CI, -0.26% to 0.31%; P = 0.0016). Total verification time and total dose processing times were significantly lower in Phase II.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that TATV of CSPs is noninferior to pharmacist final verification and does not negatively impact the time to check CSPs or total CSP processing time.

Dispensing error rates in pharmacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Dispensing errors can cause preventable patient harm such as adverse drug events, hospitalisation, or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and quantify the global prevalence of dispensing errors across pharmacy settings.

METHODS

Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched between January 2010 and September 2023. Studies published in English, from all pharmacy settings, with data that could be used to calculate the prevalence of dispensing errors were included. Studies were excluded if they did not report true dispensing errors. Data including study characteristics and dispensing error characteristics were extracted. The quality of the studies was assessed using 10 criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed to estimate pooled prevalences and heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed according to sample size, study design, setting, error identification method, location, and study quality.

PROSPERO

CRD42020197860.

RESULTS

Of the 4216 articles, 62 studies were included. Hospital was the most common pharmacy setting (n = 44, 71.0%) and 15 studies were based in the community. The type of denominator used to report dispensing errors varied between studies, such as dispensed items (n = 45, 72.6%), doses (n = 7, 11.3%), or patients (n = 5, 8.1%). The prevalence of dispensing errors ranged from 0 to 33.3% (n = 62 studies with 64 prevalence estimates). The pooled prevalence for dispensing errors across all studies was 1.6% (95% CI 1.2%-2.1%, I2 = 100%). A majority of studies were of moderate methodological quality (n = 36, 58.1%) and interrater reliability was applied in eight studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The worldwide prevalence of dispensing errors was 1.6% across community, hospital and other pharmacy settings. This varied depending on the type of denominator used, study design and how the error was identified. This review highlights the need for consistent definitions and standardised classifications of dispensing errors worldwide to reduce heterogeneity.

Practice-enhancing publications about the medication-use process in 2019

PURPOSE

This article identifies, prioritizes, and summarizes published literature on the medication-use process (MUP) from calendar year 2019 that can impact health-system pharmacy daily practice. The MUP is the foundational system that provides the framework for safe medication utilization within the healthcare environment. The MUP is defined in this article as having the following components: prescribing/transcribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring. Articles that evaluated one of the steps were gauged for their usefulness in promoting daily practice change.

SUMMARY

A PubMed search was conducted in January 2020 for calendar year 2019 using targeted Medical Subject Headings keywords; in addition, searches of the table of contents of selected pharmacy journals were conducted. A total of 4,317 articles were identified. A thorough review identified 66 potentially practice-enhancing articles: 17 for prescribing/transcribing, 17 for dispensing, 7 for administration, and 25 for monitoring. Ranking of the articles for importance by peers led to the selection of key articles from each category. The highest-ranked articles are briefly summarized, with a mention of why each article is important within health-system pharmacy. The other articles are listed for further review and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

It is important to routinely review the published literature and to incorporate significant findings into daily practice; this article assists in identifying and summarizing the most impactful recently published literature in this area. Health-system pharmacists have an active role in improving the MUP in their institution, and awareness of the significant published studies can assist in changing practice at the institutional level.

Advancing Community Pharmacy Practice - A Technician Product Verification Pilot to Optimize Care

Elevating the technical role of pharmacy technicians to perform Technician Product Verification (TPV) is one strategy that has shown promise to optimize pharmacy practice models. This is done by better positioning pharmacists to provide clinical care, in line with their education and expertise. TPV permits a Validated Pharmacy Technician, as defined by the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board, to verify the accuracy of a product filled by another technician. The pharmacist maintains responsibility for assessing the clinical appropriateness of the prescription, including drug utilization review, data entry, and patient counseling.

During the study period, 12,891 pharmacist-verified prescriptions (baseline) and 27,447 Validated Pharmacy Technician-verified prescriptions were audited for accuracy. The aggregate verification error rate for pharmacist-verified prescriptions was 0.16% and 0.01% for Validated Pharmacy Technician-verified prescriptions. The mean error rate was significantly less for Validated Pharmacy Technician-verified prescriptions than for pharmacist-verified prescriptions (0.19 ± 0.174 % vs 0.03 ± 0.089 %, p=0.020) (Figure 3).

This suggests TPV in the community pharmacy setting maintained patient safety. In this study, Validated Pharmacy Technicians were shown to be more accurate than pharmacists at performing product verification. The ability to delegate the product verification task holds the potential to free up pharmacist time for increased direct patient care. Increasing direct patient care by pharmacists in community pharmacies may have significant implications for improving patient outcomes and pharmacy quality.

Appointment-based models: A comparison of three model designs in a large chain community pharmacy setting

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of 3 different appointment-based model (ABM) designs on medication adherence and medication use outcomes controlling for patient and pharmacy characteristics.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort analysis in a large grocery store chain from January 1, 2012, to October 31, 2015. A total of 500 comparison and 613 intervention patients in 3 different model designs were analyzed. The outcome measures were proportion of days covered for selected medication classes, number of fills, administered vaccinations, number of trips, statin use in persons with diabetes, use of high-risk medications in older adults, and medication therapy for persons with asthma.

RESULTS

After adjusting for relevant covariates, the authors found that all of the ABM designs significantly increased the number of fills after enrollment. Model designs 1 and 3 also significantly reduced the number of trips after enrollment: 4.5 fewer trips (95% CI -5.3 to -3.8; P < 0.05) for model 1 and 1.9 fewer trips (95% CI -3 to -0.9; P < 0.05) for model 3. Models 1 and 3 increased the percentage of patients considered to be adherent for diabetes medications and increased the number of vaccinations patients received. Models 1 and 2 significantly increased the percentage of patients considered to be adherent for statins. No model design was significantly associated with statin use in diabetes, high-risk medication use in older adults, nor percentage of patients considered to be adherent for the hypertension measure.

CONCLUSION

All of the ABM designs were effective at increasing the number of fills after enrollment. This paralleled an increase in percentage of patients considered to be adherent to diabetes and statin therapies after enrollment. Models that included face-to-face delivery of the appointment and telephonic synchronization, or face-to-face delivery for all components, increased the number of vaccinations that patients received after enrollment and significantly reduced the number of trips a patient made to the pharmacy.

The Effect of Performance Transparency on Adherence to Barcode Scanning During Order Preparation in an Adult Inpatient Satellite Pharmacy

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of performance transparency and individualized feedback on pharmacy technician compliance with barcode verification technology during inpatient order preparation. Methods: Following the incorporation of barcode scanning technology into the workflow of pharmacy staff, a multiphasic intervention was employed to promote its use. The intervention included verbal feedback and publically posting performance metrics to increase accountability. An interrupted time-series analysis was conducted to ascertain trends and levels in the percent of orders that were dispensed using barcode verification, before and after the study intervention. Analyses were conducted by shift and overall for pharmacy workers in a single satellite pharmacy. Results: A significant increase in percent scanned orders was observed immediately following the intervention in our analysis of all pharmacy workers (+14.4%; P = .045; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-28.4). In the analysis of each shift, statistically significant increases in percent scanned orders were observed immediately following the intervention for both the evening shift (+5.1%; P = .024; 95% CI: 0.70-9.6) and the night shift (+29.9%; P = .025; 95% CI: 3.9-55.9), but not the day shift (+2.6; P = .707; 95% CI: -11.1 to 16.2). Conclusion: Increasing transparency of individual and team performance metrics in conjunction with targeted feedback is an effective intervention to improve compliance with barcode scanning technology.

Assessment of technician barcode scanning verification compared to pharmacist verification

Purpose

This study aims to show the feasibility and sustainability of technician barcode scanning verification as an alternative to pharmacist visual verification of first dose medications in an acute care setting.

Methods

A two-phase, noninferiority, single-center study was conducted to compare the accuracy of technician barcode scanning verification to pharmacist visual verification of pre-packaged first dose medications within a large acute care medical center. In phase 1, a pharmacy technician utilized barcode scanning as a means of verification. These preparations were then re-verified for accuracy by pharmacist visual verification. In phase 2, the verification order was reversed, starting with pharmacist visual verification of first doses, which were subsequently re-verified by a technician utilizing barcode scanning. Accuracy and efficiency (first dose processing time) of each phase was analyzed via error logs and retrospective dose tracking.

Results

A total of 12,328 first dose preparations were included in the analysis and showed no difference between technician barcode scanning verification and pharmacist visual verification. Retrospective time study showed a 4-minute decrease in processing time when doses were verified by technician barcode scanning. Based on initial study outcomes, a variance was granted to pilot first dose tech-check-tech by the Wisconsin State Board of Pharmacy.

Conclusion

This study determined that there is no difference in verification accuracy between technician barcode scanning verification and pharmacist visual verification of first doses in an acute care setting. Through leveraging technology and skill mix, Froedtert Hospital was able to provide the same level of patient safety while decreasing pharmacy processing time, developing our technician workforce, and reallocating pharmacist staff from distributive roles in central pharmacy to decentralized clinical activities.