Comparing Patient Satisfaction with Automated Drug Dispensing System and Traditional Drug Dispensing System: A Cross-Sectional Study
Palanisamy Amirthalingam,Abdulrahman Alruwaili,Omar Albalawi,Fayez Alatawi,Saleh Alqifari,Ahmed Alatawi,Ahmed Aljabri
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s492802
2024-11-27
Patient Preference and Adherence
Abstract:Palanisamy Amirthalingam, 1 Abdulrahman Sulaiman Alruwaili, 2 Omar Ahmed Albalawi, 2 Fayez Mohammed Alatawi, 2 Saleh F Alqifari, 1 Ahmed D Alatawi, 3 Ahmed Aljabri 4 1 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia; 2 Pharm.D Program, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia; 3 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia; 4 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Palanisamy Amirthalingam, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Tabuk, P.O. Box 741, Tabuk, 71491, Saudi Arabia, Email Introduction: The adoption of automated drug dispensing systems (ADDS) in hospital pharmacies is a global trend, driven by its potential to reduce dispensing errors, minimize prescription filling time, and ultimately, improve patient care services. However, a significant research gap exists in the field, as a comprehensive assessment of patient satisfaction with ADDS is currently lacking. This study, with its comprehensive approach, aims to fill this gap by comparing patient satisfaction between hospital pharmacies implementing ADDS and traditional drug dispensing systems (TDDS). Patients and Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted in hospitals adopting ADDS and TDDS. All the outpatients aged 18 or above who visited the pharmacy were included, and severely ill patients were excluded from the study. A 17-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire assessed the participant's satisfaction. The questionnaire has four domains: pharmacy administration, dispensing practice, patient education, and dispensing system. Results: The demographics of the study participants were normally distributed between ADDS and TDDS according to chi-square analysis. The mean participant satisfaction was significantly (P< 0.05) higher in ADDS than in TDDS regarding all the items of dispensing practice and dispensing system domains. Three items related to the pharmacy administration domain showed significant participant satisfaction with ADDS. However, the participants' satisfaction showed no significant difference (p=0.176) between ADDS and TDDS in terms of the cleanliness of the pharmacy. Also, the participant's satisfaction between ADDS and TDDS was not statistically significant regarding the pharmacist's explanation of the side effects (p=0.850) and provision of all necessary information to the patient (p=0.061) in the patient education domain. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was higher in the ADDS participants than in TDDS regarding pharmacy administration, patient education, dispensing practice, and systems. However, pharmacists in ADDS need to be motivated to transfer the advantages of ADDS to patient care, including comprehensive patient education, particularly on side effects. Keywords: automated drug dispensing system, dispensing practice, dispensing system, patient satisfaction, pharmacy administration, traditional drug dispensing system The Pharmacist's role in dispensing medication is crucial and integral to patient care. It involves a complex process that combines technologies and human interaction. Dispensing errors are one component of medication errors that disrupt the achievement of therapeutic outcomes. It is a "discrepancy between a prescription and the medicine that the pharmacy delivers to the patient or distributes to the ward based on this prescription, including dispensing a medicine with inferior pharmaceutical or informational quality." 1,2 The most common dispensing errors reported by the previous studies include wrong medication dispensed, wrong medication strength, and labeling errors. 3 A recent meta-analysis, which includes 62 studies published between 2010 and 2023, reported that the pooled prevalence of dispensing error is 1.6% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.1%). They added that the prevalence of dispensing errors ranged from country to country between 0 to 33%. 4 Previous reports stated that 5.8% of medication errors were hazardous, and 0.8% were fatal. 5 According to a systematic review, the introduction of automated drug dispensing systems (ADDS) globally has shown significant potential in reducing errors and associated risks, thereby enhancing medication safety. 6 Pharmacists and nurses identify 30 to 70% of medication errors in traditional drug dispensing systems (TDDS), which are almost nullified by ADDS and improve patient safety. 7,8 Pharmacists have expressed a remarkably positive perception of its effectiveness in medication disp -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal