Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34795001›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2023

Automated unit dose dispensing systems producing individually packaged and labelled drugs for inpatients: a systematic review.

Kaisa Hänninen, Hanne Katriina Ahtiainen, Eeva Maria Suvikas-Peltonen, Ann Marie Tötterman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lessons learned from the safety investigation of an omitted dose-dispensed medicine.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kaisa HänninenHospital Pharmacy, Central Finland Hospital Nova, Jyvaskyla, Finland kaisa.hanninen@ksshp.fi.
Hanne Katriina AhtiainenFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Eeva Maria Suvikas-PeltonenHospital Pharmacy, Satasairaala Central Hospital, Pori, Finland.
Ann Marie TöttermanFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FICentral Finland Health Care District · FISatakunta Central Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPharmacy automation is increasing in hospitals. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the literature on automated unit dose dispensing systems (UDDS) producing individually packaged and labelled drugs for inpatients.

methodsThe search was conducted on eight electronic databases, including Scopus, Medline Ovid, and Cinahl, and limited to peer reviewed articles with English abstracts published 2000-2020. Studies were included in the review if drug dispensing was performed by an automated UDDS where individually packaged and labelled unit doses were subsequently assembled patient specifically for inpatients. All outcomes related to UDDS functionality were included with specific interest in medication safety, cost-efficiency and stock management. Outcomes were categorised and results synthesised qualitatively.

results664 publications were screened, one article identified manually, resulting in eight included articles. Outcomes of the studies were categorised as medication administration errors (MAEs), dispensing errors, costs and cost-effectiveness. Studies showed that automated UDDS reduced significantly MAEs of inpatients compared with traditional ward stock system (WSS), especially when UDs were dispensed patient specifically by unit dose dispensing robot. Patient specific drug dispensing with automated UDDS was very accurate. Of three different automated medication systems (AMSs), patient specific AMS (psAMS) was the most cost-effective and complex AMS (cAMS) the most expensive system across all error types due to the higher additional investments and operation costs of automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs). None of the studies investigated the impact on the medication management process such as efficiency, costs and stock management as primary outcome.

conclusionsUDDS improved patient safety. However, automation is a costly investment and the implementation process is complex and time consuming. Further controlled studies are needed on the clinical and economical outcomes of automated UDDS to produce reliable knowledge for hospital decision makers on the cost-benefit of the investment and to support decision making.

Indexed as

Medication ErrorsPharmacy Service, HospitalHumansInpatientsMedication Systems, HospitalPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparationsautomated medication systemautomated unit dose dispensing systemcost-effectivenessinpatientmedication administration errorsmedication stock managementunit dose dispensing robot

Identifiers

PMID34795001
PMCPMC10176995
OpenAlexW3212801415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.