Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Different Automated Medication Systems Implemented in a Danish Hospital Setting

Automated unit dose dispensing systems producing individually packaged and labelled drugs for inpatients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacy automation is increasing in hospitals. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the literature on automated unit dose dispensing systems (UDDS) producing individually packaged and labelled drugs for inpatients.

METHODS

The search was conducted on eight electronic databases, including Scopus, Medline Ovid, and Cinahl, and limited to peer reviewed articles with English abstracts published 2000-2020. Studies were included in the review if drug dispensing was performed by an automated UDDS where individually packaged and labelled unit doses were subsequently assembled patient specifically for inpatients. All outcomes related to UDDS functionality were included with specific interest in medication safety, cost-efficiency and stock management. Outcomes were categorised and results synthesised qualitatively.

RESULTS

664 publications were screened, one article identified manually, resulting in eight included articles. Outcomes of the studies were categorised as medication administration errors (MAEs), dispensing errors, costs and cost-effectiveness. Studies showed that automated UDDS reduced significantly MAEs of inpatients compared with traditional ward stock system (WSS), especially when UDs were dispensed patient specifically by unit dose dispensing robot. Patient specific drug dispensing with automated UDDS was very accurate. Of three different automated medication systems (AMSs), patient specific AMS (psAMS) was the most cost-effective and complex AMS (cAMS) the most expensive system across all error types due to the higher additional investments and operation costs of automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs). None of the studies investigated the impact on the medication management process such as efficiency, costs and stock management as primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

UDDS improved patient safety. However, automation is a costly investment and the implementation process is complex and time consuming. Further controlled studies are needed on the clinical and economical outcomes of automated UDDS to produce reliable knowledge for hospital decision makers on the cost-benefit of the investment and to support decision making.

Impact of automated drug dispensing system on patient safety

Objectives

Automated drug dispensing system (ADDs) is an emerging technology positively impacts drug dispensing efficiency by minimizing medication errors. However, the pharmacist perception of the impact of ADDs on patient safety is not well-established. This cross-sectional observational study aimed to evaluate the dispensing practice and pharmacist perception of ADDs towards patient safety through a validated questionnaire.

Methods

A self-designed questionnaire was validated and the pharmacist perception of dispensing practice was compared between two hospitals adopting ADDs and traditional drug dispensing system (TDDs).

Results

The developed questionnaire had an excellent internal consistency (both Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω coefficients were >0.9). Factor analysis retained three significant factors (subscales) that explained pharmacist perception of dispensing system, dispensing practice, and patient counseling (p<0.001 for each factor). The average number of prescriptions dispensed per day, drugs contained in each prescription, average time for labeling each prescription and inventory management were significantly varied between ADDs and TDDs (p=0.027, 0.013 0.044 and 0.004, respectively). The perception of pharmacists using ADDs on three domains were higher than the TDDs. The pharmacists in ADDs agreed that they had enough time to review the medications before dispensing than TDDs and this difference was found to be statistically significant (p=0.028).

Conclusions

ADDs was highly effective in improving dispensing practice and medication review; however, the pharmacists need to emphasize the importance of ADDs to translate the pharmacists' freed-time towards patient care.

Cost-effectiveness of central automated unit dose dispensing with barcode-assisted medication administration in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Central automated unit dose dispensing (cADD) with barcode-assisted medication administration (BCMA) has been shown to reduce medication administration errors (MAEs). Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cADD with BCMA compared to usual care.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective before-and-after effectiveness study in a Dutch university hospital. The primary effect measure was the difference between the rate of MAEs before and after implementation of cADD with BCMA, obtained by disguised observation in six clinical wards and subsequent extrapolation to the entire hospital. The cost-analysis was conducted from a hospital perspective with a 12-month incremental costing approach. The total costs covered the pharmaceutical service, nurse medication handling, wastage, and materials related to cADD. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as costs per avoided MAE, obtained by dividing the annual incremental costs by the number of avoided MAEs. The secondary outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as costs per avoided potentially harmful MAE (i.e. MAEs with the potential to cause harm).

RESULTS

The intervention was associated with an absolute MAE reduction of 4.5% and a reduction of 2.7% for potentially harmful MAEs. Based on 2,260,870 administered medications in the entire hospital annually, a total of 102,210 MAEs and 59,830 potentially harmful MAEs were estimated to be avoided. The intervention was associated with an increased incremental cost of €1,808,600 annually. The cost-effectiveness ratio was €17.69 per avoided MAE and €30.23 per avoided potentially harmful MAE.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of cADD with BCMA was associated with a reduced rate of medication errors, including harmful ones, at higher overall costs. The costs per avoided error are relatively low, and therefore, this intervention could be an important strategy to improve patient safety in hospitals.

[Contribution of a hospital pharmacy team to critical care of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2]

Le circuit du médicament hospitalier le plus sûr est la dispensation journalière individuelle nominative automatisée assurée par la pharmacie. Depuis plusieurs années nous essayons de convaincre les décideurs hospitaliers de l’implanter dans notre établissement. En attendant, pour pallier les risques d’erreurs médicamenteuses encourus par les patients et les soignants, nous avons constitué plusieurs équipes de travail au sein des unités de soins. Ces équipes sont constituées d’un pharmacien et d’un ou deux préparateurs en pharmacie hospitalière qui assurent notamment la gestion des armoires à pharmacie des unités de soins. La collaboration étroite avec médecins et personnel infirmier développée au fil des années a été un élément favorable déterminant lorsqu’il a fallu doter en médicaments et en dispositifs médicaux stériles (DMS) les nouvelles unités de soins critiques face à l’afflux de patients contaminés par le SARS-CoV2. Le suivi quotidien des médicaments consommés par patient, particulièrement les curares, et des DMS en rupture d’approvisionnement a été un élément clé de la gestion des stocks et des changements de principes actifs, de conditionnements et/ou de références de matériel. Les faits relatés donnent du poids au rapport Claris qui souligne les effets positifs en termes de qualité et de sécurité de prise en charge des patients du travail des PPH et pharmaciens dans les unités de soins. Ils soulignent par ailleurs les dangers auxquels sont exposés patients et soignants samedi, dimanche et jours fériés quand la pharmacie est fermée. Ils légitiment la question de l’extension de l’ouverture de la pharmacie en équipe complète 365 jours par an.

The academic-industry divide in health communication: A call for increased partnership

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare communication research, teaching, and practice is in a period of innovation and disruption from new technologies, consumerization, and emerging models of care delivery. The goal of this commentary is to discuss perceived barriers and provide baseline metrics of academic-industry partnership in health communication.

METHODS

We coded industry affiliations of authors published in Patient Education and Counseling (PEC) in 2018, and attendees and authors of accepted submissions at the 2018 International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH). We examined perceived barriers to collaboration by summarizing a roundtable discussion between industry and academic participants at the 2018 ICCH conference.

RESULTS

In 2018, less than 5% of contributions to PEC, 16 abstracts (3.1%) and only 7 attendees (1.4%) at ICCH had industry affiliations. Roundtable participants identified actual or perceived motivational differences, publication challenges, and distinct metrics/outcomes as key barriers to collaboration.

CONCLUSION

These rough estimates provide a benchmark for current industry collaboration in our professional society. We discuss potential benefits of increased partnerships, suggest approaches to reduce barriers, and highlight recent progress.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As individuals and professional organizations, we should promote ethical, multidisciplinary, and high impact research, teaching, and practice in partnership with our colleagues in industry.

Safety, time and cost evaluation of automated and semi-automated drug distribution systems in hospitals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review automated and semi-automated drug distribution systems (DDSs) in hospitals and to evaluate their effectiveness on medication safety, time and costs of medication care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus, CINAHL and EMB Reviews covering the period 2005 to May 2016. Studies were included if they (1) concerned technologies used in the drug distribution and administration process in acute care hospitals and (2) reported medication safety, time and cost-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Key outcomes, conclusions and recommendations of the included studies (n=30) were categorised according to the dispensing method: decentralised (n=19 studies), centralised (n=6) or hybrid system (n=5). Patient safety improved (n=27) with automation, and reduction in medication errors was found in all three systems. Centralised and decentralised systems were reported to support clinical pharmacy practice in hospitals. The impact of the medication distribution system on time allocation such as labour time, staffing workload or changes in work process was explored in the majority of studies (n=24). Six studies explored economic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

No medication distribution system was found to be better than another in terms of outcomes assessed in the studies included in the systematic review. All DDSs improved medication safety and quality of care, mainly by decreasing medication errors. However, many error types still remained-for example, prescribing errors. Centralised and hybrid systems saved more time than a decentralised system. Costs of medication care were reduced in decentralised systems mainly in high-expense units. However, no evidence was shown that implementation of decentralised systems in small units would save costs. More comparable evidence on the benefits and costs of decentralised and hybrid systems should be available. Changes in processes due to a new DDS may create new medication safety risks; to minimise these risks, training and reallocation of staff resources are needed.