Search

Background: United States pharmacies repackage medications into multi-dose vials, enabling customized dosing for prescription drugs. Investment in infrastructure has made this the predominant approach to packaging for US prescriptions. Although recent changes to labeling now discourage the use of auxiliary labels (small stickers highlighting information germane to the safe and effective use), they are still allowed by USP, provided their use comes from an evidence-based perspective. Objectives: Evaluate how ‘interactive,’ placements of auxiliary labels (placement requiring physical manipulation of the warning to accomplish a task (e.g. opening)) garner attention as compared to those placed vertically or horizontally. Methods: Ninety-six participants were eye tracked while opening three prescription vials (each with an auxiliary warning label with a different placement: vertical, horizontal and interactive). Recall and recognition were tested subsequently. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the continuous variables while the binary response variables were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. The effect of auxiliary labels was fitted as a fixed effect and the subject-to-subject variation was considered as a random effect in the model. Participants’ age, health literacy and sex were added to the models if their effect was statistically significant at alpha=0.05. Results: The placement of the warnings significantly impacted the time spent viewing the information they contained at alpha=0.05; people spent significantly longer on interactive placements (0.96; SD 0.13 seconds) than either, horizontal placements (0.27; SD 0.037 seconds) or those placed vertically (0.18 seconds; SD 0.035). Participants were equally as likely to see information presented in an interactive placement (90%; SD 3.8) or horizontal placement (78%; SD 05.5) but less likely to view warnings placed vertically (60%; SD 6.9). Free recall responses also supported the use of interactive placement (62%; SD 6.8 recall) as compared to horizontal placements which were 29%; SD 3.0 and 20%; SD 6.0 for vertical placements. Conclusions: Data provides evidence which suggests that interactive and horizontal placements out-perform auxiliary labels placed vertically on prescription vials with regard to garnering patient attention.

Background: During the 1980s, manual repackaging of multi-dose medications from pharmacies in Sweden was successively substituted with automated multi-dose drug dispensing (MDD). There are few studies evaluating the consequences of automated MDD with regard to patient safety, and those that investigate this issue are not very extensive. Objectives: To investigate Swedish health care professionals´ perceived experience of automated MDD and its effects on patient adherence and patient safety. Methods: Three questionnaire forms, one for physicians, nurses, and assistant nurses/nursing assistants, were developed based on reviews of the literature and pilot testing of the questions in the intended target groups. The target groups were health professionals prescribing or administrating MDD to patients. A sample (every sixth municipality) was drawn from the sampling frame of Swedish municipalities, resulting in 40 municipalities, about 14% of all municipalities in Sweden. Email addresses of general practitioners were obtained from county councils, while the municipalities assisted in getting contact details for nurses, assistant nurses and nursing assistants. A total of 915 questionnaires were distributed electronically to physicians, 515 to nurses, and 4,118 to assistant nurses/nursing assistants. The data were collected in September and October 2012. Results: The response rate among physicians, nurses and assistant nurses/nursing assistants was 31%, 43% and 23%, respectively. The professionals reported that automated MDD reduces duplication of medication, contributes to correct dosages, helps patients take their medication at the right time, and reduces confusion among patients. Fifteen per cent of the physicians and about one-third of the nurses and assistant nurses/nursing assistants reported that generic substitution makes it more difficult for the patient to identify the various medicines available in the sachets. The physicians did, however, note that prescribing medicine to patients with automated MDD is complicated and can be a risk for patient safety. Both physicians and nurses requested more information on and training in automated MDD. They also asked for more medication reviews. Conclusions: The professionals generally had a positive attitude to automated MDD with regard to improved medication adherence, but said they believed that the electronic prescribing system posed a safety risk for patients.