干扰和分心是如何影响药房实践的?对其在配药中的影响和干预的范围审查。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Meaza Ayanaw, Angelina Lim, Harjit Khera, Thao Vu, Darshna Goordeen, Daniel Malone
{"title":"干扰和分心是如何影响药房实践的?对其在配药中的影响和干预的范围审查。","authors":"Meaza Ayanaw, Angelina Lim, Harjit Khera, Thao Vu, Darshna Goordeen, Daniel Malone","doi":"10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pharmacists play a crucial role in reducing medication errors, identifying 30-70 % of medication-ordering errors. However, they can also contribute to dispensing errors. Interruptions and distractions during dispensing have been known to account for approximately 9.4 % of these errors, with reported occurrences of every two to six min.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review existing knowledge on the impact of interruptions and distractions in pharmacy practice, including their frequency, types, and previously implemented or proposed strategies for mitigation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was conducted on June 26, 2024, November 13, 2024, and January 16, 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics summarised study characteristics, while content analysis identified common types of interruptions and distractions, their frequency, impact, and the interventions used or recommended.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, 7884 studies proceeded to title and abstract screening. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 141 full-text studies were assessed, and 51 were included in the review. Pharmacists and technicians experience interruptions and distractions at varying rates, from less than 5 to more than 20 times per hour. The most common external interruptions and distractions were phone calls, face-to-face inquiries from consumers, as well as interruptions and distractions from shop staff who needed to interrupt the pharmacist to manage customer queries that were out of their scope. Internal interruptions included self-initiated task-switching, checking on staff, and non-work-related web browsing. These disruptions primarily impacted the dispensing process, pharmacists' workload, performance, well-being, and patient wait times. Few interventions have been implemented, falling into three main categories: facility modification (adjusting the physical environment), system modification (altering workflow processes), and communication adjustments (limiting direct access to pharmacists during dispensing).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are both limited reported interventions in the pharmacy workplace, and a lack of educational initiatives at the university setting, to mitigate the impact of interruptions and distractions. These findings highlight the need to establish better foundational dispensing habits and develop methods to reduce the frequency of directly accessing the pharmacist during dispensing. Avoiding having a single pharmacist on duty at any given time and clearly defining the roles of different pharmacists during various shifts may be effective ways to reduce dispensing errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48126,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do interruptions and distractions affect pharmacy practice? A scoping review of their impact and interventions in dispensing.\",\"authors\":\"Meaza Ayanaw, Angelina Lim, Harjit Khera, Thao Vu, Darshna Goordeen, Daniel Malone\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.05.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pharmacists play a crucial role in reducing medication errors, identifying 30-70 % of medication-ordering errors. However, they can also contribute to dispensing errors. Interruptions and distractions during dispensing have been known to account for approximately 9.4 % of these errors, with reported occurrences of every two to six min.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review existing knowledge on the impact of interruptions and distractions in pharmacy practice, including their frequency, types, and previously implemented or proposed strategies for mitigation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was conducted on June 26, 2024, November 13, 2024, and January 16, 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics summarised study characteristics, while content analysis identified common types of interruptions and distractions, their frequency, impact, and the interventions used or recommended.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After removing duplicates, 7884 studies proceeded to title and abstract screening. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 141 full-text studies were assessed, and 51 were included in the review. Pharmacists and technicians experience interruptions and distractions at varying rates, from less than 5 to more than 20 times per hour. The most common external interruptions and distractions were phone calls, face-to-face inquiries from consumers, as well as interruptions and distractions from shop staff who needed to interrupt the pharmacist to manage customer queries that were out of their scope. Internal interruptions included self-initiated task-switching, checking on staff, and non-work-related web browsing. These disruptions primarily impacted the dispensing process, pharmacists' workload, performance, well-being, and patient wait times. Few interventions have been implemented, falling into three main categories: facility modification (adjusting the physical environment), system modification (altering workflow processes), and communication adjustments (limiting direct access to pharmacists during dispensing).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are both limited reported interventions in the pharmacy workplace, and a lack of educational initiatives at the university setting, to mitigate the impact of interruptions and distractions. These findings highlight the need to establish better foundational dispensing habits and develop methods to reduce the frequency of directly accessing the pharmacist during dispensing. Avoiding having a single pharmacist on duty at any given time and clearly defining the roles of different pharmacists during various shifts may be effective ways to reduce dispensing errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.05.001\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.05.001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药剂师在减少用药错误方面发挥着至关重要的作用,发现了30- 70%的用药错误。然而,它们也可能导致分配错误。已知调剂过程中的中断和分心约占这些错误的9.4%,每2到6分钟发生一次。目的:回顾现有的关于药房实践中中断和分心影响的知识,包括其频率、类型和先前实施或建议的缓解策略。方法:本综述遵循乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的方法,并按照系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价(PRISMA-ScR)指南的首选报告项目进行报道。在2024年6月26日、2024年11月13日和2025年1月16日对Ovid Medline、Web of Science、Embase、CINAHL和Scopus数据库进行了全面检索。根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准选择研究。描述性统计总结了研究特征,而内容分析确定了常见的干扰和干扰类型、频率、影响以及使用或建议的干预措施。结果:在去除重复项后,7884项研究进行了标题和摘要筛选。按照纳入和排除标准,141篇全文研究被评估,51篇被纳入本综述。药剂师和技术人员受到干扰和分心的频率各不相同,从每小时不到5次到超过20次不等。最常见的外部干扰和干扰是电话,来自消费者的面对面询问,以及需要打断药剂师处理超出其范围的客户询问的店员的干扰和干扰。内部干扰包括自我启动的任务切换、检查员工和与工作无关的网页浏览。这些中断主要影响了配药过程、药剂师的工作量、表现、健康和患者等待时间。实施的干预措施很少,主要分为三大类:设施改造(调整物理环境)、系统改造(改变工作流程)和沟通调整(限制在配药过程中直接接触药剂师)。结论:据报道,在药房工作场所的干预措施有限,而且在大学环境中缺乏教育举措,以减轻干扰和干扰的影响。这些发现强调需要建立更好的基本调剂习惯,并制定方法来减少在调剂过程中直接接触药剂师的频率。避免在任何特定时间只有一名药剂师值班,并明确界定不同药剂师在不同班次中的角色,可能是减少配药错误的有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do interruptions and distractions affect pharmacy practice? A scoping review of their impact and interventions in dispensing.

Background: Pharmacists play a crucial role in reducing medication errors, identifying 30-70 % of medication-ordering errors. However, they can also contribute to dispensing errors. Interruptions and distractions during dispensing have been known to account for approximately 9.4 % of these errors, with reported occurrences of every two to six min.

Objective: To review existing knowledge on the impact of interruptions and distractions in pharmacy practice, including their frequency, types, and previously implemented or proposed strategies for mitigation.

Methods: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was conducted on June 26, 2024, November 13, 2024, and January 16, 2025. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics summarised study characteristics, while content analysis identified common types of interruptions and distractions, their frequency, impact, and the interventions used or recommended.

Results: After removing duplicates, 7884 studies proceeded to title and abstract screening. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 141 full-text studies were assessed, and 51 were included in the review. Pharmacists and technicians experience interruptions and distractions at varying rates, from less than 5 to more than 20 times per hour. The most common external interruptions and distractions were phone calls, face-to-face inquiries from consumers, as well as interruptions and distractions from shop staff who needed to interrupt the pharmacist to manage customer queries that were out of their scope. Internal interruptions included self-initiated task-switching, checking on staff, and non-work-related web browsing. These disruptions primarily impacted the dispensing process, pharmacists' workload, performance, well-being, and patient wait times. Few interventions have been implemented, falling into three main categories: facility modification (adjusting the physical environment), system modification (altering workflow processes), and communication adjustments (limiting direct access to pharmacists during dispensing).

Conclusion: There are both limited reported interventions in the pharmacy workplace, and a lack of educational initiatives at the university setting, to mitigate the impact of interruptions and distractions. These findings highlight the need to establish better foundational dispensing habits and develop methods to reduce the frequency of directly accessing the pharmacist during dispensing. Avoiding having a single pharmacist on duty at any given time and clearly defining the roles of different pharmacists during various shifts may be effective ways to reduce dispensing errors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP) is a quarterly publication featuring original scientific reports and comprehensive review articles in the social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences. Topics of interest include outcomes evaluation of products, programs, or services; pharmacoepidemiology; medication adherence; direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications; disease state management; health systems reform; drug marketing; medication distribution systems such as e-prescribing; web-based pharmaceutical/medical services; drug commerce and re-importation; and health professions workforce issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信