{"title":"Right-brain utilization in pharmacists' dispensing processes: an eye-tracking analysis of efficiency and safety using error-induction models.","authors":"Toshikazu Tsuji, Kenichiro Nagata, Masayuki Tanaka, Shiori Iwane, Shigeru Hasebe, Yuto Nishiyama, Nana Yoshikawa, Hiroyuki Watanabe, Shigeru Ishida, Takeshi Hirota, Ichiro Ieiri, Mayako Uchida","doi":"10.1186/s40780-025-00443-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dispensing errors associated with \"same-name drugs\" and \"similar-name drugs\" are common, negatively affecting patients. Using two pairs of error-induction models, this study analyzed pharmacists' gaze movements while dispensing by an eye-tracking method to interpret their thought processes. Thus, we aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of dispensing processes by examining right-brain function using error-induction models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We created verification slides for display on a prescription monitor and three drug rack monitors. The prescription monitor displayed the dispensing information, including drug name, drug usage, location display, and total amount. A total of 180 drugs, including five target drugs, were displayed on the three-drug rack monitors. We measured total gaze points in the prescription area (Gaze 1), total gaze points in the drug rack area (Gaze 2), total vertical eye movements between the two areas (Passage), time required to dispense drugs (Time), and the error rate for each verification (Error). First, we defined two types of location display methods: \"numeral combination\" and \"color/symbol combination\". Then, we established two pairs of error-induction models, F<sub>1</sub>-F<sub>2</sub> (same-name drugs) and G<sub>1</sub>-G<sub>2</sub> (similar-name drugs), to compare the differences between the two location display methods in the designated area.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences in gaze movements of pharmacists between the models F<sub>1</sub>-F<sub>2</sub> were observed in Gaze 2, Passage, and Time (F<sub>1</sub> > F<sub>2</sub>, P < 0.001, respectively), with similar results between models G<sub>1</sub>-G<sub>2</sub> (G<sub>1</sub> > G<sub>2</sub>, P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, the error rates in models F<sub>1</sub> and F<sub>2</sub> were 10.0% (11/110) and 6.4% (7/110), as well as 13.6% (15/110) and 5.5% (6/110) in models G<sub>1</sub> and G<sub>2</sub>, respectively. A significant difference in error rates was observed between the models G<sub>1</sub>-G<sub>2</sub> (G<sub>1</sub> > G<sub>2</sub>, P = 0.020), but not between the models F<sub>1</sub>-F<sub>2</sub> (P = 0.286).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Incorporating visual information into prescription content not only performs a series of dispensing tasks more smoothly, but also reduces the error occurrences by pharmacists. In other words, leveraging right-brain utilization in dispensing processes has led to improvements in both efficiency and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":16730,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences","volume":"11 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12051269/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40780-025-00443-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Dispensing errors associated with "same-name drugs" and "similar-name drugs" are common, negatively affecting patients. Using two pairs of error-induction models, this study analyzed pharmacists' gaze movements while dispensing by an eye-tracking method to interpret their thought processes. Thus, we aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of dispensing processes by examining right-brain function using error-induction models.
Methods: We created verification slides for display on a prescription monitor and three drug rack monitors. The prescription monitor displayed the dispensing information, including drug name, drug usage, location display, and total amount. A total of 180 drugs, including five target drugs, were displayed on the three-drug rack monitors. We measured total gaze points in the prescription area (Gaze 1), total gaze points in the drug rack area (Gaze 2), total vertical eye movements between the two areas (Passage), time required to dispense drugs (Time), and the error rate for each verification (Error). First, we defined two types of location display methods: "numeral combination" and "color/symbol combination". Then, we established two pairs of error-induction models, F1-F2 (same-name drugs) and G1-G2 (similar-name drugs), to compare the differences between the two location display methods in the designated area.
Results: Significant differences in gaze movements of pharmacists between the models F1-F2 were observed in Gaze 2, Passage, and Time (F1 > F2, P < 0.001, respectively), with similar results between models G1-G2 (G1 > G2, P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, the error rates in models F1 and F2 were 10.0% (11/110) and 6.4% (7/110), as well as 13.6% (15/110) and 5.5% (6/110) in models G1 and G2, respectively. A significant difference in error rates was observed between the models G1-G2 (G1 > G2, P = 0.020), but not between the models F1-F2 (P = 0.286).
Conclusions: Incorporating visual information into prescription content not only performs a series of dispensing tasks more smoothly, but also reduces the error occurrences by pharmacists. In other words, leveraging right-brain utilization in dispensing processes has led to improvements in both efficiency and safety.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
