A dictation system for reporting prescribing errors in community pharmacies

Abstract

Abstract Objective To pilot and evaluate dictation as a novel method of reporting prescribing errors in community pharmacies. Setting Seven community pharmacies in northwestern Vermont. Method An intervention reporting form was developed and implemented in seven community pharmacies. Using a crossover design, pharmacists reported by both dictation and paper methods for six weeks each. The primary objective was to determine if dictation stimulated more prescribing error reports than a paper-based reporting method. Secondary objectives included a qualitative assessment of dictation feasibility, pharmacist satisfaction with reporting in general, pharmacist preference for a dictation or paper reporting method, and a content description of the prescribing errors reported. Key findings Pharmacists completed a total of 72 reports, describing 80 interventions, during the 12-week study. Thirty-three reports were dictated and 39 were completed on paper (P= 0.56). There were no differences in completeness of reports between paper and dictation (P = 0.62). Seven out of the nine pharmacists (78%) stated they preferred the paper method to dictation. Conclusion Dictation does not appear to increase prescribing error reporting as compared with a paper method. Implementing dictation in community pharmacies proved feasible although most of the pharmacists in this study preferred the paper method. Further investigation to explore dictation as a useful technology in community pharmacies is warranted.