Cargando…
Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015
IMPORTANCE: While much is known about hospital pharmacy error rates in the USA, comparatively little is known about community pharmacy dispensing error rates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors in the USA. METHODS: English language, pee...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000193 |
_version_ | 1783361093202083840 |
---|---|
author | Campbell, Patrick J Patel, Mira Martin, Jennifer R Hincapie, Ana L Axon, David Rhys Warholak, Terri L Slack, Marion |
author_facet | Campbell, Patrick J Patel, Mira Martin, Jennifer R Hincapie, Ana L Axon, David Rhys Warholak, Terri L Slack, Marion |
author_sort | Campbell, Patrick J |
collection | PubMed |
description | IMPORTANCE: While much is known about hospital pharmacy error rates in the USA, comparatively little is known about community pharmacy dispensing error rates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors in the USA. METHODS: English language, peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies that reported community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA from January 1993 to December 2015 were identified in 10 bibliographic databases and topic-relevant grey literature. Studies with a denominator reflecting the total number of prescriptions in the sample were necessary for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate an aggregate community pharmacy dispensing error rate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic prior to analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 8490 records, of which 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Two articles did not have adequate data components to be included in the meta-analysis. Dispensing error rates ranged from 0.00003% (43/1 420 091) to 55% (55/100). The meta-analysis included 1 461 128 prescriptions. The overall community pharmacy dispensing error rate was estimated to be 0.015 (95% CI 0.014 to 0.018); however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I(2)=99.6). Stratification by study error identification methodology was found to have a significant impact on dispensing error rate (p<0.001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There are few published articles that describe community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA. Thus, there is limited information about the current rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors. A robust investigation is needed to assess dispensing error rates in the USA to assess the nature and magnitude of the problem and establish prevention strategies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6173242 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61732422018-10-10 Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 Campbell, Patrick J Patel, Mira Martin, Jennifer R Hincapie, Ana L Axon, David Rhys Warholak, Terri L Slack, Marion BMJ Open Qual Systematic Reviews IMPORTANCE: While much is known about hospital pharmacy error rates in the USA, comparatively little is known about community pharmacy dispensing error rates. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors in the USA. METHODS: English language, peer-reviewed observational and interventional studies that reported community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA from January 1993 to December 2015 were identified in 10 bibliographic databases and topic-relevant grey literature. Studies with a denominator reflecting the total number of prescriptions in the sample were necessary for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate an aggregate community pharmacy dispensing error rate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic prior to analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 8490 records, of which 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Two articles did not have adequate data components to be included in the meta-analysis. Dispensing error rates ranged from 0.00003% (43/1 420 091) to 55% (55/100). The meta-analysis included 1 461 128 prescriptions. The overall community pharmacy dispensing error rate was estimated to be 0.015 (95% CI 0.014 to 0.018); however, significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I(2)=99.6). Stratification by study error identification methodology was found to have a significant impact on dispensing error rate (p<0.001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There are few published articles that describe community pharmacy dispensing error rates in the USA. Thus, there is limited information about the current rate of community pharmacy dispensing errors. A robust investigation is needed to assess dispensing error rates in the USA to assess the nature and magnitude of the problem and establish prevention strategies. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6173242/ /pubmed/30306141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000193 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews Campbell, Patrick J Patel, Mira Martin, Jennifer R Hincapie, Ana L Axon, David Rhys Warholak, Terri L Slack, Marion Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title | Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title_full | Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title_fullStr | Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title_short | Systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the USA: 1993–2015 |
title_sort | systematic review and meta-analysis of community pharmacy error rates in the usa: 1993–2015 |
topic | Systematic Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173242/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000193 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT campbellpatrickj systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT patelmira systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT martinjenniferr systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT hincapieanal systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT axondavidrhys systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT warholakterril systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 AT slackmarion systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcommunitypharmacyerrorratesintheusa19932015 |