Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
ResearchSurvey of dispensing error practices in community pharmacies in Finland: A nationwide study
Section snippets
Objectives
We aimed to assess the actions taken to manage dispensing errors in Finnish community pharmacies, to investigate pharmacist perceptions of ideal methods for managing dispensing errors, and to evaluate the reliability of in-house dispensing error reporting systems.
Survey instrument
This study was part of a larger study assessing whether Finnish community pharmacists’ perceptions and actions reflect the system approach to medication safety. The survey instrument consisted of three main topics about medication safety and dispensing errors in the community pharmacies: (1) managing dispensing errors, (2) pharmacist perceptions of dispensing errors, and (3) reporting dispensing errors. Practices to manage and report dispensing errors are the main focus of the current report.
Results
A total of 346 responses were received, 6 of which were blank; therefore, 340 responses were entered into the study (response rate 57%; encompassing 56% of all Finnish community pharmacies). Of the respondents, 41% were owners (n = 138) and 57% were operational managers (n = 195). The responding outlets represented the target pharmacies well in terms of number of prescriptions per year, geographic location, existing quality management system, and number of qualified staff (Table 1).
Discussion
Respondents considered discussing dispensing errors as the most ideal method for managing dispensing errors. Discussing dispensing errors with the whole staff was considered particularly valuable. Also, documenting dispensing errors was often reported as an ideal dispensing error practice by respondents. These findings demonstrate that Finnish community pharmacists are aware of some of the principles of managing dispensing errors based on the system approach. However, respondents did not list
Limitations
The owners and managing pharmacists were motivated to respond, as shown by the fairly good response rate (57%). However, the response rate could have been improved by sending a reminder.29 The reasons for nonresponse were not clarified, and whether or how these nonrespondents differ from the respondents is unknown. Although the responding outlets represented the target pharmacies well, it is possible that at least a number of nonrespondents failed to respond because their pharmacies did not
Conclusion
Almost 90% of Finnish community pharmacies have an in-house dispensing error reporting system, but reporting has not been fully implemented in all pharmacies. The actual error reporting in most Finnish community pharmacies is not reliable and needs further development and coordination.
Discussing dispensing errors and documenting dispensing errors were reported as the most ideal methods for managing errors. Respondents indicated a hope that dispensing errors would be discussed more frequently
References (29)
- et al.
National observational study of prescription dispensing accuracy and safety in 50 pharmacies
J Am Pharm Assoc
(2003) - et al.
Dispensing errors and counseling in community practice
Am Pharm
(1995) Beyond blame: cultural barriers to medical incident reporting
Soc Sci Med
(2005)- Council of Europe, Expert Group on Safe Medication Practices (P-SP-PH/SAFE). Creation of a better medication safety...
- et al.
Providing patient care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Finland
Ann Pharmacother
(2007) - Association of Finnish Pharmacies. Annual review 2004. Accessed at...
- et al.
Medication error reporting in Finland [Bachelor's thesis] [in Finnish]
(2004) - et al.
A system approach to dispensing errors: a national study on perceptions of the Finnish community pharmacists
Pharm World Sci
(2008) Human error: models and management
BMJ
(2000)
Error in medicine
JAMA
Department of Health. An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS
Reporting of adverse events
N Engl J Med
Cited by (8)
Quality-related event learning in community pharmacies: Manual versus computerized reporting processes
2012, Journal of the American Pharmacists AssociationCitation Excerpt :For respondents in pharmacies with a manual QRE reporting processes, the need for better feedback was also highlighted and to a much greater extent. The benefits of feedback have been highlighted in the pharmacy context.3-36 For example, in a study involving community pharmacies, less than 47% of pharmacists always reported medication errors and suggested that discussing errors more frequently with their staff would be an ideal aspect of managing errors.34
Primary care physicians' perceptions of medication errors and error prevention in cooperation with community pharmacists
2011, Research in Social and Administrative PharmacyCitation Excerpt :In addition to open-ended questions, the survey instrument included 3 sets of statements related to the primary care physicians' perceptions of medication errors and error management. The same methodology was applied in assessing dispensing safety risks from the community pharmacists' perspectives in Finland as a part of the same large research project.49,50 The survey instrument consisted of the following themes: background information about the respondents and their practice; respondents' perceptions of causes and preventive actions of medication errors; and respondents' perceptions of cooperation with community pharmacists in medication error prevention and management (Appendix).
How safe is primary care? A systematic review
2016, BMJ Quality and SafetyExploring factors that contribute to dose administration aid incidents and identifying quality improvement strategies: The views of pharmacy and nursing staff
2014, International Journal of Pharmacy PracticeStarting an automated dose dispensing service provided by community pharmacies in Finland
2014, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests in any product or service mentioned in this article, including grants, employment, gifts, stock holdings, or honoraria.
Acknowledgments: To Kirsi Kaunisvesi, MSc (Pharm), Kirsikka Kaila, MSc (Pharm), and other pharmacists for their help in developing the survey instrument, to the Association of Finnish Pharmacies for help and support in mailing the survey questionnaires, and to all pharmacy owners and managing pharmacists participating in the survey.
Funding: Supported in part by grants from the Association of Finnish Pharmacies and the Finnish Cultural Foundation.