has allowed the implementation of measures to ensure authenticity and a high level of traceability, providing greater patient safety. Aim and objectives To assess the impact of the implementation of the falsified medicines directive 6 months after introducing the new legislation. Material and methods Elaboration of a form (MS-Excel) with the purpose of systematising the data was performed. Of all products prescribed between 18 and 27 September 2019, products not covered by the requirement of a unique identifier code were excluded. The following parameters were analysed: presence of the unique identifier code, start time and end of code scan, and appearance of problems with the scanning procedure. Results A total of 201 products were analysed. About 69% of the products had a unique identifier code. Of the products intended to be dispensed for outpatients, only 70% had a unique identifier. After reading 10 935 packages, it was found that, on average, reading of 12.9% of the products with a unique identifier code had at least one scanning issue. The average time for reading a unique identifier code was 9.5 s (includes connecting the software, verifying the safety device, positioning the packaging for the scan read and waiting for scan read confirmation). Conclusion and relevance Six months after introducing the counterfeit medicines directive, about 31% of the products received in the hospital pharmacy did not have a unique identifier code. This includes products for outpatients where scanning at dispensing could be a relevant added value. Reading time of the unique identifier code represents around 29 working hours in 8 working days, or 0.5 ETC (7 hour working day). Implementation of this directive required investments in software, material and human resources, and the internal work procedures were also reorganised. Direct advantages for patient care are not yet evident as the unique identifier is still not fully implemented.
BackgroundComplete or partial drug shortages are harmful for patients. Their number has been increased by 10 in 5 years. In this context, a quantitative and descriptive analysis of these shortages was performed.PurposeIncreasing drug shortages have been reported in several studies. This analysis aimed to confirm this rise from 2007 to 2015 and to characterise the shortages in our hospital in 2014.Material and methodsThe pharmacy supply chain team (1 pharmacist, 2 pharmacy residents, 2 pharmacy technicians) gathered, selected and analysed shortages data from health authorities, purchase groups and pharmaceutical factories. Shortages impacting our stock were pointed out and listed in an Excel worksheet, updated daily since 2007. This file could be consulted by the whole hospital pharmacy team. To keep.caregivers (physicians, health managers, nurses, pharmacists) informed, briefing notes, including a strict alternative drug, substitution by a non-strict alternative drug (different dosages or administration routes) and complete shortages without alternative treatments, were sent.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2015, shortages increased up to 122% in our hospital. In 2014, we were short of 223 references among 2868 available drugs (eg, 8% of our drug formulary), the amount of purchases account was 145 000€. Over the same period, the most represented Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classifications were nervous system (22%), anti-infectives for systemic use (21%), and blood and blood forming organs (8%). Average duration of a shortage was 64 days (1–720 days) for drugs not subjected to quotas and 180 days (11–792 days) for drugs with quotas. In 43% of cases, shortages impacted essential medicines according to the WHO classification and 38% had no alternative. Moreover, 38 briefing notes were sent to care units.ConclusionThe number of drug shortages increased every year. The use of an updated file of current shortages shared among the pharmacy team and health information management by writing briefing notes could be solutions to deal with such a challenge.References and/or AcknowledgementsBogaert P. A qualitative approach to a better understanding of the problems underlying drug shortages, as viewed from Belgian, French and the European Union’s perspectives. PLOS One May 2015WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 19th list (April 2015)No conflict of interest.
has allowed the implementation of measures to ensure authenticity and a high level of traceability, providing greater patient safety. Aim and objectives To assess the impact of the implementation of the falsified medicines directive 6 months after introducing the new legislation. Material and methods Elaboration of a form (MS-Excel) with the purpose of systematising the data was performed. Of all products prescribed between 18 and 27 September 2019, products not covered by the requirement of a unique identifier code were excluded. The following parameters were analysed: presence of the unique identifier code, start time and end of code scan, and appearance of problems with the scanning procedure. Results A total of 201 products were analysed. About 69% of the products had a unique identifier code. Of the products intended to be dispensed for outpatients, only 70% had a unique identifier. After reading 10 935 packages, it was found that, on average, reading of 12.9% of the products with a unique identifier code had at least one scanning issue. The average time for reading a unique identifier code was 9.5 s (includes connecting the software, verifying the safety device, positioning the packaging for the scan read and waiting for scan read confirmation). Conclusion and relevance Six months after introducing the counterfeit medicines directive, about 31% of the products received in the hospital pharmacy did not have a unique identifier code. This includes products for outpatients where scanning at dispensing could be a relevant added value. Reading time of the unique identifier code represents around 29 working hours in 8 working days, or 0.5 ETC (7 hour working day). Implementation of this directive required investments in software, material and human resources, and the internal work procedures were also reorganised. Direct advantages for patient care are not yet evident as the unique identifier is still not fully implemented.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.