Your clinical pharmacist can save your life, the impact of pharmacist's intervention.

Objective: Patient safety and adverse event analysis are of paramount importance in the management of patient medication, given the significant economic burden they place on a country's healthcare system. Medication errors fall into the category of preventable adverse drug therapy events and are therefore of key importance from a patient safety perspective. Our study aims to identify the types of medication errors associated with the medication dispensing process and to determine whether automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention significantly reduces medication errors, thereby increasing patient safety, compared to traditional, ward base medication dispensing (by a nurse). Method: A prospective, quantitative, double-blind point prevalence study was conducted in three inpatient internal medicine wards of Komló Hospital in February 2018 and 2020. We analyzed data from comparisons of prescribed and non-prescribed oral medications in 83 and 90 patients per year aged 18 years or older with different diagnoses treated for internal medicine on the same day and in the same ward. In the 2018 cohort, medication was traditionally dispensed by a ward nurse, while in the 2020 cohort, it used automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention. Transdermally administered, parenteral and patient-introduced preparations were excluded from our study. Results: We identified the most common types of errors associated with drug dispensing. The overall error rate in the 2020 cohort was significantly lower (0.9%) than in the 2018 cohort (18.1%) (p < 0.05). Medication errors were observed in 51% of patients in the 2018 cohort, i.e. 42 patients, of which 23 had multiple errors simultaneously. In contrast, in the 2020 cohort, a medication error occurred in 2%, i.e. 2 patients (p < 0.05). When evaluating the potential clinical consequences of medication errors, in the 2018 cohort, the proportion of potentially significant errors was 76.2% and potentially serious errors 21.4%, whereas in the 2020 cohort, only three medication errors were identified in the potentially significant category due to pharmacist intervention, which was significantly lower (p < 0.05). Polypharmacy was detected in 42.2% of patients in the first study and in 12.2% (p < 0.05) in the second study. Conclusion: Automated individual medication dispensing with pharmacist intervention is a suitable method to increase the safety of hospital medication, reduce medication errors, and thus improve patient safety.