Review of Tech-Check-Tech

Abstract

Objective: To explore the legal implications of the empiric literature and relevant legal literature on tech-check-tech. Methods: Two reviews were made: one of the states' and US holdings' laws regarding technician credentialing and tech-check-tech, and another of the empiric literature on tech-check-tech. Data Sources/Selection: The International Pharmacy Abstracts database and PubMed were searched for articles using the following key words: Tech* & accuracy, Tech* & check, Tech* & error, and tech-check-tech. When searching PubMed, the term “pharmacy” was added in each search. This search was verified July 2, 2002, to ensure that no articles were missed. Full articles and meeting abstracts were included if they contained data that allowed for comparisons between pharmacists' and technicians' accuracy or error rates in checking. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources were used. All articles included were searched on the Web of Science to find other relevant articles. The bibliographies of the included articles were also checked. Data Synthesis: Thirty-five of the 53 US states and holdings (66%) either license, register, certify, require Pharmacy Technician Certification Board certification, and/or have technician training or educational requirements. Four states (7.5%) allow tech-check-tech in some form. Ten empiric studies were found that investigated tech-check-tech. The error detection rate was available in only 2 of the studies and showed nearly the same rates (technicians 97%, pharmacists 94%). Conclusions: This work found no evidence suggesting that tech-check-tech should not be adopted for unit-dose cart fill in every state. The credentialing of technicians varies greatly from state to state. Tech-check-tech procedures are sparsely used in the US. Training may improve accuracy, and the average error detection rate was higher for technicians than for pharmacists.