0
Viewpoint
Improving medication delivery and counseling in community pharmacy
Michael T. Rupp, PhD, BPharm
J Am Pharm Assoc. 2009;49:151-152. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2009.09010
View Author Identification Section
Professor of Pharmacy Administration, College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ, mtrupp@midwestern.edu
In this issue of the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, researchers from Auburn University+1 report their study of dispensing errors in 100 chain pharmacies that served as the basis for a sensational segment on the ABC News program 20/20 in March 2007. For those who may have missed the 20/20 story when it aired, their results remind us that the axiom “to err is human” also applies to the processing and dispensing of prescription drugs.
One could quibble, and I do, with a number of things that were done in the study, as well as some that were not done. For example, defining “dispensing error” to include putting too many or too few tablets into a vial would seem to dilute and trivialize the term. Certainly, the potential for harming the patient would appear to be rather remote. Also, why use handwritten prescription orders? They are destined for the trash heap of history and contribute nothing but a potential source of bias if the objective is to quantify dispensing errors that are exclusively attributable to pharmacy staff. Using typed prescription orders would have avoided this possible confounder entirely, as would eliminating abbreviations in the Sig (directions) portion of the medication order. Why use employees of ABC News as observers when they clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of the study? After all, who would want to watch a segment of 20/20 that screamed, “Chain pharmacies are safer than ever!” Using independent shoppers would have eliminated any concerns about possible bias. Additionally, the number of patrons standing at the pharmacy counter would seem to be a very crude measure of pharmacy workload. (The researchers use the term “busyness.”) A more direct and relevant indicator would be the volume of prescriptions processed per hour divided by the number of pharmacists and technicians on duty.
I was also disappointed to see that pharmacists were set up for failure by having the faux patients purchase aspirin at the same time that they picked up a prescription for warfarin. So, now pharmacists must be prescient, too? They should know, or perhaps assume, that the patient is purchasing the aspirin for his or her own use? Should pharmacists scrutinize all incidental purchases made by anyone who is picking up a prescription? Is that their responsibility? Is it even any of their business? This component of the study strikes me as an unrealistic and unfair “gotcha.”
Despite my misgivings about the study's methods, the article provides us with a reason to revisit the important issue of improving prescription drug delivery in the community practice setting. I am willing to accept that preventable errors remain in the system and that patient counseling is far from perfect. The more important question and the one that 20/20 failed to address when they aired the story is, “How can we continue to improve the safety of medication delivery in the community setting?”
Here are five things that occur to me, and I would be interested in hearing additional suggestions from my colleagues in the trenches.
  • Eliminate handwritten prescriptions. We're talking low-hanging fruit here. Pharmacists and technicians are trained in the science and art of pharmacy, not cryptography. Everyone makes jokes about physicians' handwriting. Pharmacists even joke among themselves about the ridiculous examples they see every day in practice. But here's the thing: it's not funny. Given the recognized relationship between prescription legibility and medication errors, it's scandalous that handwritten prescriptions are still legal outside of true emergency situations. In addition to instantly improving patient safety, this would also improve the quality of life, not to mention quality of sleep, of pharmacists and technicians everywhere.
  • Provide pharmacists with access to the patient information needed for making good clinical decisions. You can't make good decisions with bad information. Most pharmacists continue to practice in what amounts to an informational vacuum. Anyone who believes they can consistently make good clinical decisions in such an environment is kidding themselves. When the drug use review provisions of OBRA '90 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) were implemented in January 1993, pharmacists became legally responsible for ensuring the safety and appropriateness of prescribed medication therapy. They can't reasonably be expected to fulfill this responsibility without better access to patient information, and we can begin by providing them with the diagnosis or intended goal of therapy.
  • Encourage the adoption of true computer-to-computer electronic prescribing. Importantly, this includes working with prescribers, pharmacies, and computer system vendors to identify and eliminate the glitches that inevitably accompany implementing any breakthrough technology. A good place to start is the best practice recommendations that were distilled from the comments of hundreds of chain pharmacists and technicians in a recent study published in JAPhA.+2 In addition to ensuring legibility of prescription orders, e-prescribing also decreases dispensing costs, eliminates the potential for transcribing errors by pharmacy staff, and facilitates the electronic exchange of patient information between the prescriber and the pharmacist.
  • Require that a verbal offer to counsel is made on every prescription in a manner that ensures truly informed decision making by the patient. A number of years ago, an attorney friend suggested that a patient's response to the way most offers to counsel are made would not hold up in court as informed consent (or dissent, as the case may be). He argued that patients cannot make a truly informed decision unless they know what counseling would entail if they accepted it. With that premise in mind, one progressive computer system vendor developed a product to assist patients in making better-informed counseling decisions. The idea is simple: use a signature capture device to allow patients to check off the specific content areas that they would like the pharmacist to cover during a counseling session. If patients select “none,” then they have made the decision to refuse counseling with a full understanding of what it would have entailed. If they check one or more of the content areas listed, they accept counseling and assist the pharmacist to target their session to the information they are most interested in knowing. We cannot force patients to accept counseling. However, we can and should insist that patients have a clear understanding of what they are refusing when they decline counseling. We need more innovation in this important area.
  • Reform reimbursement for prescription drugs under public and private insurance programs. The simple reality is most pharmacists practice in systems over which they have very little control. Their practice behaviors are dictated by the demands of systems that were designed with one overriding objective: maximum distributive efficiency. Why? Because that is how the reimbursement system is structured. Clearly, chain pharmacy organizations themselves contribute to the frenetic pace endured by pharmacists and technicians. Electronic productivity surveillance and computer terminals that (literally) flash red alert to staff if a prescription has been waiting for more than 15 minutes are better suited to the delivery of fast food than prescription drugs. Still, the chain pharmacy industry did not make the rules; they simply play by the rules that they were given. If we want pharmacists to practice differently, then we must change the reimbursement system to reward them and their employers for practicing differently. We must shift the competitive playing field from production to performance. Until we fundamentally reform reimbursement, anything else we do—indeed, everything else we do—will amount to little more than tinkering around the edges of the real issue. If change is our new national mantra, then this is where it should begin in pharmacy.
Flynn EA, Barker KN, Berger BA, et al. Dispensing errors and counseling quality in 100 pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2009;49:171–80.[CrossRef]
 
Rupp MT, Warholak TL. Evaluation of e-prescribing in chain community pharmacy: best practice recommendations. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48:364–70.
 

References

Flynn EA, Barker KN, Berger BA, et al. Dispensing errors and counseling quality in 100 pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2009;49:171–80.[CrossRef]
 
Rupp MT, Warholak TL. Evaluation of e-prescribing in chain community pharmacy: best practice recommendations. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48:364–70.
 
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of the editorial staff.
* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

JAPhA Articles
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
A cluster randomized controlled Trial to Evaluate an Ambulatory primary care Management program for patients with dyslipidemia: the TEAM study.
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne: Issue date- 2010 Mar 23
Involving physicians in MedsCheck.
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne: Issue date- 2008 Apr 8
Advertisement
 
  • Print
  • PDF Download
  • Email
  • Share
  • Get Citation
  • Submit Comment
  • Article Alerts
    Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
    You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

    Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

  • Letters To Editor
  • Reprints