OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in dispensing errors within community telepharmacy practices by comparing error rates across central sites (community telepharmacy sites with pharmacists present) and the corresponding remote sites, which are staffed by registered technicians and overseen by the central site pharmacist. DESIGN: Cross-sectional pilot study with a test group (remote sites) and comparison group (central sites). SETTING: 24 rural community telepharmacies (14 remote sites and 10 central sites). PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy staff. INTERVENTION: The Pharmacy Quality Commitment (PQC) reporting system was integrated into the North Dakota Telepharmacy Project and used to track dispensing errors over a 45-month period. Both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians were trained on the use of the PQC system. The PQC system focused on two quality-related events (QREs): a "near miss" (i.e., a mistake discovered by the pharmacy staff before a medication reaches the patient) and an "error" (i.e., a mistake discovered after the patient leaves the pharmacy with the medication). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The distribution of QREs across central and remote sites. RESULTS: The remote (central) telepharmacy group reported 47,078 (62,480) prescriptions and a QRE rate of 1.34% (1.43%). QREs at the remote sites were more likely than at the central sites to be caught at the final pharmacist check (58.2% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.01) and less likely to be caught by the patient (0.17% vs. 0.28%, P < 0.01). Remote sites were more likely to include incorrect directions (18.9% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.01) in the medication entry process. CONCLUSION: QRE rates for remote site and central site telepharmacies were consistent with each other and with national estimates in traditional community pharmacies. However, significant differences between central and remote sites existed based on how QREs arose and how they were caught. Pharmacists must recognize this fact and use diligence when working in a telepharmacy setting.
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in dispensing errors within community telepharmacy practices by comparing error rates across central sites (community telepharmacy sites with pharmacists present) and the corresponding remote sites, which are staffed by registered technicians and overseen by the central site pharmacist. DESIGN: Cross-sectional pilot study with a test group (remote sites) and comparison group (central sites). SETTING: 24 rural community telepharmacies (14 remote sites and 10 central sites). PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy staff. INTERVENTION: The Pharmacy Quality Commitment (PQC) reporting system was integrated into the North Dakota Telepharmacy Project and used to track dispensing errors over a 45-month period. Both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians were trained on the use of the PQC system. The PQC system focused on two quality-related events (QREs): a "near miss" (i.e., a mistake discovered by the pharmacy staff before a medication reaches the patient) and an "error" (i.e., a mistake discovered after the patient leaves the pharmacy with the medication). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The distribution of QREs across central and remote sites. RESULTS: The remote (central) telepharmacy group reported 47,078 (62,480) prescriptions and a QRE rate of 1.34% (1.43%). QREs at the remote sites were more likely than at the central sites to be caught at the final pharmacist check (58.2% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.01) and less likely to be caught by the patient (0.17% vs. 0.28%, P < 0.01). Remote sites were more likely to include incorrect directions (18.9% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.01) in the medication entry process. CONCLUSION: QRE rates for remote site and central site telepharmacies were consistent with each other and with national estimates in traditional community pharmacies. However, significant differences between central and remote sites existed based on how QREs arose and how they were caught. Pharmacists must recognize this fact and use diligence when working in a telepharmacy setting.
Authors: Ana L Hincapie; Ahmad Alamer; Julie Sears; Terri L Warholak; Semin Goins; Sara Danielle Weinstein Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 2.342