A system approach to dispensing errors: a national study on perceptions of the Finnish community pharmacists
- 400 Downloads
Objective To examine pharmacists’ perceptions and opinions on the potential causes of dispensing errors and the ways to prevent them in community pharmacies, and to assess whether pharmacists’ perceptions reflect the system approach. Method A survey instrument was mailed to privately owned Finnish community pharmacies (n = 599) in March 2005. The survey included two open-ended questions to assess the pharmacists’ perceptions on potential causes and prevention of dispensing errors. Furthermore, the questionnaire contained 20 structured, Likert-type, statements of dispensing errors and their management. The survey was addressed to the owner or operational manager of the pharmacy. The emphasis in the analysis of the study was on the open-ended questions which were analysed using the content analysis method. All quantitative data was analysed using the SPSS for Windows. Main outcome measure: The community pharmacists’ perceptions and opinions on the potential causes and preventive factors of dispensing errors. Results A total of 340 responses were entered in the study (response rate 57%). The content analysis revealed that factors related to organization and those related to individual professionals were the most frequently mentioned as the potential causes of dispensing errors (37% and 30% of all potential causes given, respectively; number of respondents n = 326; total number of given items n = 967). The organizational factors (46% of all the preventive factors given), and factors related to individual professionals (41%) were also the most frequently considered as preventive (number of respondents n = 323; total number of given items n = 916). The analysis of the structured statements revealed that discussion about the dispensing errors with pharmacy staff and changes in working routines based on the dispensing error incidents were considered to be the most important factors in error prevention. A heavy workload and the similarity of drug packages were considered as the most important potential causes of the dispensing errors in the structured statements. Conclusion Finnish community pharmacists still, to some extent, have the person-centred approach to medication safety although signs of the system approach were also evident. Attitudinal changes still have to take place, as well as changes to the practice environment, in order to get the system approach fully implemented in the Finnish community pharmacies.
KeywordsCommunity pharmacy Dispensing error Finland Medication error Medication safety Pharmacist opinion Pharmacist perception System approach
The authors thank Kirsi Kaunisvesi, M.Sc.(Pharm.), Kirsikka Kaila, M.Sc.(Pharm.) and other pharmacists for their help in developing the survey instrument as well as all pharmacy owners and managing pharmacists participating in the survey. The authors also thank Jaana Kovalainen and the Association of Finnish Pharmacies for help and support in mailing the survey questionnaires, and Simon Bell, Ph.D., B.Pharm.(Hons.) for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interests
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of this manuscript.
- 1.Cohen MR, editor. Medication Errors. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association; 1999. ISBN 0-917330-89-7.Google Scholar
- 2.Council of Europe, Expert Group on Safe Medication Practices. Creation of a better medication safety culture in Europe: Building up safe medication practices [Internet]. Council of Europe. 2006. Available from: http://www.coe.int/t/e/social_cohesion/soc-sp/Medication%20safety%20culture%20report%20E.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 3.National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP). What is a Medication Error? [Internet]. NCC MERP; Available from: http://www.nccmerp.org/aboutMedErrors.html Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 6.Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. Report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS. London: The Stationery Office; 2000. ISBN 0-11-322441-9.Google Scholar
- 7.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. ISBN 0-309-07280-8.Google Scholar
- 8.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson SM, editors. (Institute of Medicine). To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000. ISBN 0-309-06837-1.Google Scholar
- 9.Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Second National Report on Patient Safety. Improving Medication Safety [Internet]. Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2002 Jul. Available from: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/F0FD7442D1F2F8DDCA2571C6000894FF/$File/med_saf_rept.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 10.World Health Organization (WHO). World Alliance for Patient Safety. Forward Programme 2005 [Internet]. WHO. 2004 Oct. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/en/brochure_final.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 11.European Commission. DG Health and Consumer Protection. Patient Safety - Making it Happen! Luxembourg Declaration on Patient Safety [Internet]. Luxembourg. 2005 Apr. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/Documents/ev_20050405_rd01_en.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 12.SIMPATIE Project. Final Report. Safety Improvement for Patients in Europe [Internet]. 2007 May. Available from: http://www.simpatie.org/Main/ff1196084509 Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 18.Flynn EA, Barker KN, Carnahan BJ. National observational study of prescription dispensing accuracy and safety in 50 pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;43:91–200.Google Scholar
- 21.Spencer MG, Smith AP. A multicentre study of dispensing errors in British hospitals. Int J Pharm Pract. 1993;2:142–6.Google Scholar
- 24.Reason J. Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. ISBN 0–521-31419-4.Google Scholar
- 25.Feinberg JL, editor. Med Pass Survey. A Continuous Quality Improvement Approach. Alexandria VA: American Society of Consultant Pharmacists; 1993.Google Scholar
- 27.National Agency for Medicines. Labelling and package leaflets for medicinal products [Internet]. National Agency for Medicines. 2005 Nov. Available from: http://www.nam.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/laakelaitos/embeds/Normiuudistus_2005_M_5_2005_EN.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 28.Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, Official Journal L 311, 28/11/2001 P.0067 – 0128.Google Scholar
- 29.The Association of Finnish Pharmacies. Annual review 2004 [Internet]. Helsinki: The Association of Finnish Pharmacies. 2005. Available from: http://www.apteekkariliitto.fi/BinaryServlet?rs=623/624/827/829/:6571/ Accessed 26 May 2008.
- 30.Tuomi J, Sarajärvi A. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi [Qualitative research and content analysis]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy; 2004. Finnish; ISBN 951-26-4856-3.Google Scholar
- 36.Kivijärvi A. Laatutietoisuus ja laatutyö Suomen apteekeissa [master’s thesis] [Quality consciousness and management in Finnish community pharmacies]. [Helsinki]: University of Helsinki; 2004.Google Scholar
- 37.Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP). Medication Safety Self Assessment for Community/Ambulatory Pharmacy [Internet]. ISMP; 2001. Available from: http://www.ismp.org/selfassessments/Book.pdf Accessed 26 May 2008.