Article Text

The effect of the electronic transmission of prescriptions on dispensing errors and prescription enhancements made in English community pharmacies: a naturalistic stepped wedge study
  1. Bryony Dean Franklin1,2,
  2. Matthew Reynolds1,
  3. Stacey Sadler3,
  4. Ralph Hibberd2,
  5. Anthony J Avery4,
  6. Sarah J Armstrong5,
  7. Rajnikant Mehta5,
  8. Matthew J Boyd6,
  9. Nick Barber2,7
  1. 1Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Practice and Policy, UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK
  3. 3NHS Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group, Easthorpe House, Nottingham, UK
  4. 4Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  5. 5The NIHR Research Design Service for the East Midlands, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
  6. 6Division of Social Research in Medicines and Health, University of Nottingham School of Pharmacy, Nottingham, UK
  7. 7The Health Foundation, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Bryony Dean Franklin, Centre for Medication Safety and Service Quality, Pharmacy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, UK; Bryony.deanfranklin{at}imperial.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objectives To compare prevalence and types of dispensing errors and pharmacists’ labelling enhancements, for prescriptions transmitted electronically versus paper prescriptions.

Design Naturalistic stepped wedge study.

Setting 15 English community pharmacies.

Intervention Electronic transmission of prescriptions between prescriber and pharmacy.

Main outcome measures Prevalence of labelling errors, content errors and labelling enhancements (beneficial additions to the instructions), as identified by researchers visiting each pharmacy.

Results Overall, we identified labelling errors in 5.4% of 16 357 dispensed items, and content errors in 1.4%; enhancements were made for 13.6%. Pharmacists also edited the label for a further 21.9% of electronically transmitted items. Electronically transmitted prescriptions had a higher prevalence of labelling errors (7.4% of 3733 items) than other prescriptions (4.8% of 12 624); OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.76). There was no difference for content errors or enhancements. The increase in labelling errors was mainly accounted for by errors (mainly at one pharmacy) involving omission of the indication, where specified by the prescriber, from the label. A sensitivity analysis in which these cases (n=158) were not considered errors revealed no remaining difference between prescription types.

Conclusions We identified a higher prevalence of labelling errors for items transmitted electronically, but this was predominantly accounted for by local practice in a single pharmacy, independent of prescription type. Community pharmacists made labelling enhancements to about one in seven dispensed items, whether electronically transmitted or not. Community pharmacists, prescribers, professional bodies and software providers should work together to agree how items should be dispensed and labelled to best reap the benefits of electronically transmitted prescriptions. Community pharmacists need to ensure their computer systems are promptly updated to help reduce errors.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Linked Articles