Analysis of pharmacists' interventions on electronic versus traditional prescriptions in 2 community pharmacies

Adrienne M. Gilligan, Kimberly Miller, Adam Mohney, Courtney Montenegro, Jacob Schwarz, Terri L Warholak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Relatively little is known about how e-prescribing impacts outpatient prescribing errors. Comparing these data with problems identified with other prescription conveyance methods will help researchers identify system problems and offer solutions. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) measure the incidence of prescription problems that required pharmacist intervention, (2) determine the types and relative frequencies of prescription conveyance that contain problems that require pharmacist intervention, and (3) estimate the pharmacy personnel time and related practice expenses for prescriptions requiring intervention. Methods: This study used an observational prospective design examining data from 2 community chain grocery store pharmacies. The primary outcome was number of interventions for each prescription conveyance type. Variables of interest included (1) the type of medication(s) involved in the intervention, (2) how the pharmacist was alerted to the potential problem, (3) reason for the intervention, (4) pharmacists' actions based on the intervention, (5) time spent during the resolution of the intervention, and (6) costs based on pharmacy personnel time. Chi-square analysis with a Bonferroni correction was used to compare percentage intervention rates between prescription conveyances. E-prescribing was used as the reference group to compare across interventions. A Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used to compare the time on task values for the interventions. Results: Pharmacists reviewed 1678 new prescriptions and intervened on 153 (9.1%) during 13 days of data collection. A total of 11 hours and 58 minutes were required to perform all interventions for an overall average of 4.9 (standard deviation = 0.34) minutes per intervention. The most common reasons for pharmacists' intervention on e-prescriptions were excessive quantity/duration (18.2%) and violating legal requirements (18.2%). The percentages of interventions were significantly different between e-prescribing (11.7%) and both faxed (3.9%) and verbal (5.1%) orders (P< .0001 and P< .01, respectively), with faxed and verbal interventions occurring less frequently. The difference in the intervention rates between e-prescribing (11.7%) and handwritten (15.4%) prescription conveyances were not statistically significant. Conclusion: When comparing e-prescribing with handwritten prescriptions requiring interventions, no significant differences existed. Results suggest that pharmacists must intervene on e-prescriptions as at the same rate as handwritten prescriptions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)523-532
Number of pages10
JournalResearch in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
Volume8
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Pharmacies
Pharmacists
Prescriptions
Personnel
Costs
Electronic Prescribing
Observational Studies
Outpatients
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Community pharmacy
  • E-prescribing
  • Medication errors
  • Pharmacists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmaceutical Science

Cite this

Analysis of pharmacists' interventions on electronic versus traditional prescriptions in 2 community pharmacies. / Gilligan, Adrienne M.; Miller, Kimberly; Mohney, Adam; Montenegro, Courtney; Schwarz, Jacob; Warholak, Terri L.

In: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Vol. 8, No. 6, 11.2012, p. 523-532.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gilligan, Adrienne M. ; Miller, Kimberly ; Mohney, Adam ; Montenegro, Courtney ; Schwarz, Jacob ; Warholak, Terri L. / Analysis of pharmacists' interventions on electronic versus traditional prescriptions in 2 community pharmacies. In: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2012 ; Vol. 8, No. 6. pp. 523-532.
@article{e20d1430b1d54b5eb52253fb820d96c5,
title = "Analysis of pharmacists' interventions on electronic versus traditional prescriptions in 2 community pharmacies",
abstract = "Background: Relatively little is known about how e-prescribing impacts outpatient prescribing errors. Comparing these data with problems identified with other prescription conveyance methods will help researchers identify system problems and offer solutions. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) measure the incidence of prescription problems that required pharmacist intervention, (2) determine the types and relative frequencies of prescription conveyance that contain problems that require pharmacist intervention, and (3) estimate the pharmacy personnel time and related practice expenses for prescriptions requiring intervention. Methods: This study used an observational prospective design examining data from 2 community chain grocery store pharmacies. The primary outcome was number of interventions for each prescription conveyance type. Variables of interest included (1) the type of medication(s) involved in the intervention, (2) how the pharmacist was alerted to the potential problem, (3) reason for the intervention, (4) pharmacists' actions based on the intervention, (5) time spent during the resolution of the intervention, and (6) costs based on pharmacy personnel time. Chi-square analysis with a Bonferroni correction was used to compare percentage intervention rates between prescription conveyances. E-prescribing was used as the reference group to compare across interventions. A Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used to compare the time on task values for the interventions. Results: Pharmacists reviewed 1678 new prescriptions and intervened on 153 (9.1{\%}) during 13 days of data collection. A total of 11 hours and 58 minutes were required to perform all interventions for an overall average of 4.9 (standard deviation = 0.34) minutes per intervention. The most common reasons for pharmacists' intervention on e-prescriptions were excessive quantity/duration (18.2{\%}) and violating legal requirements (18.2{\%}). The percentages of interventions were significantly different between e-prescribing (11.7{\%}) and both faxed (3.9{\%}) and verbal (5.1{\%}) orders (P< .0001 and P< .01, respectively), with faxed and verbal interventions occurring less frequently. The difference in the intervention rates between e-prescribing (11.7{\%}) and handwritten (15.4{\%}) prescription conveyances were not statistically significant. Conclusion: When comparing e-prescribing with handwritten prescriptions requiring interventions, no significant differences existed. Results suggest that pharmacists must intervene on e-prescriptions as at the same rate as handwritten prescriptions.",
keywords = "Community pharmacy, E-prescribing, Medication errors, Pharmacists",
author = "Gilligan, {Adrienne M.} and Kimberly Miller and Adam Mohney and Courtney Montenegro and Jacob Schwarz and Warholak, {Terri L}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "523--532",
journal = "Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy",
issn = "1551-7411",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of pharmacists' interventions on electronic versus traditional prescriptions in 2 community pharmacies

AU - Gilligan, Adrienne M.

AU - Miller, Kimberly

AU - Mohney, Adam

AU - Montenegro, Courtney

AU - Schwarz, Jacob

AU - Warholak, Terri L

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Background: Relatively little is known about how e-prescribing impacts outpatient prescribing errors. Comparing these data with problems identified with other prescription conveyance methods will help researchers identify system problems and offer solutions. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) measure the incidence of prescription problems that required pharmacist intervention, (2) determine the types and relative frequencies of prescription conveyance that contain problems that require pharmacist intervention, and (3) estimate the pharmacy personnel time and related practice expenses for prescriptions requiring intervention. Methods: This study used an observational prospective design examining data from 2 community chain grocery store pharmacies. The primary outcome was number of interventions for each prescription conveyance type. Variables of interest included (1) the type of medication(s) involved in the intervention, (2) how the pharmacist was alerted to the potential problem, (3) reason for the intervention, (4) pharmacists' actions based on the intervention, (5) time spent during the resolution of the intervention, and (6) costs based on pharmacy personnel time. Chi-square analysis with a Bonferroni correction was used to compare percentage intervention rates between prescription conveyances. E-prescribing was used as the reference group to compare across interventions. A Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used to compare the time on task values for the interventions. Results: Pharmacists reviewed 1678 new prescriptions and intervened on 153 (9.1%) during 13 days of data collection. A total of 11 hours and 58 minutes were required to perform all interventions for an overall average of 4.9 (standard deviation = 0.34) minutes per intervention. The most common reasons for pharmacists' intervention on e-prescriptions were excessive quantity/duration (18.2%) and violating legal requirements (18.2%). The percentages of interventions were significantly different between e-prescribing (11.7%) and both faxed (3.9%) and verbal (5.1%) orders (P< .0001 and P< .01, respectively), with faxed and verbal interventions occurring less frequently. The difference in the intervention rates between e-prescribing (11.7%) and handwritten (15.4%) prescription conveyances were not statistically significant. Conclusion: When comparing e-prescribing with handwritten prescriptions requiring interventions, no significant differences existed. Results suggest that pharmacists must intervene on e-prescriptions as at the same rate as handwritten prescriptions.

AB - Background: Relatively little is known about how e-prescribing impacts outpatient prescribing errors. Comparing these data with problems identified with other prescription conveyance methods will help researchers identify system problems and offer solutions. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) measure the incidence of prescription problems that required pharmacist intervention, (2) determine the types and relative frequencies of prescription conveyance that contain problems that require pharmacist intervention, and (3) estimate the pharmacy personnel time and related practice expenses for prescriptions requiring intervention. Methods: This study used an observational prospective design examining data from 2 community chain grocery store pharmacies. The primary outcome was number of interventions for each prescription conveyance type. Variables of interest included (1) the type of medication(s) involved in the intervention, (2) how the pharmacist was alerted to the potential problem, (3) reason for the intervention, (4) pharmacists' actions based on the intervention, (5) time spent during the resolution of the intervention, and (6) costs based on pharmacy personnel time. Chi-square analysis with a Bonferroni correction was used to compare percentage intervention rates between prescription conveyances. E-prescribing was used as the reference group to compare across interventions. A Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used to compare the time on task values for the interventions. Results: Pharmacists reviewed 1678 new prescriptions and intervened on 153 (9.1%) during 13 days of data collection. A total of 11 hours and 58 minutes were required to perform all interventions for an overall average of 4.9 (standard deviation = 0.34) minutes per intervention. The most common reasons for pharmacists' intervention on e-prescriptions were excessive quantity/duration (18.2%) and violating legal requirements (18.2%). The percentages of interventions were significantly different between e-prescribing (11.7%) and both faxed (3.9%) and verbal (5.1%) orders (P< .0001 and P< .01, respectively), with faxed and verbal interventions occurring less frequently. The difference in the intervention rates between e-prescribing (11.7%) and handwritten (15.4%) prescription conveyances were not statistically significant. Conclusion: When comparing e-prescribing with handwritten prescriptions requiring interventions, no significant differences existed. Results suggest that pharmacists must intervene on e-prescriptions as at the same rate as handwritten prescriptions.

KW - Community pharmacy

KW - E-prescribing

KW - Medication errors

KW - Pharmacists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869868898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869868898&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.12.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 22264963

AN - SCOPUS:84869868898

VL - 8

SP - 523

EP - 532

JO - Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

JF - Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

SN - 1551-7411

IS - 6

ER -