Advertisement

Unavailable prescriptions at Danish community pharmacies: A descriptive study

  • Carina LundbyEmail author
  • Anne Vejrum Nielsen
  • Susanne Bendixen
  • Anna Birna Almarsdóttir
  • Anton Pottegård
Short Research Report

Abstract

Background Handling of unavailable prescriptions, i.e. prescriptions missing on the online server, is considered troublesome and time-consuming by community pharmacy staff and may result in both patient dissatisfaction and non-compliance. Objective To describe the occurrence and reasons for unavailable prescriptions at Danish community pharmacies as well as the types of drugs involved. Method An online 11-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to 24 community pharmacies across Denmark which each collected data on unavailable prescriptions handled within a 3-week period. Results Out of 194,358 prescriptions dispensed during the study period, a total of 2765 (1.4%) unavailable prescriptions were registered. Of these, 51.1% (n = 1412) occurred when a patient expected a new prescription after having consulted a physician, most often the patient’s general practitioner (75.6%; n = 1067). Of all unavailable prescriptions, 68.1% (n = 1882) concerned prescriptions on regular drugs for treatment of a chronic condition, with the patient not having any medication left in 27.9% (n = 526) of these cases. Unavailable prescriptions most frequently concerned cardiovascular drugs (15.8%; n = 437) followed by nervous system drugs (14.4%; n = 399). Conclusion Unavailable prescriptions occur in approximately 1% of all dispensing at Danish community pharmacies. Miscommunication between the patient and general practitioner seems to be the primary source of unavailable prescriptions.

Keywords

Community pharmacy Drug prescription Electronic prescribing Missing prescription 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge pharmaconomists Majbritt Hvilsom and Susanne Nielsen for sharing their experiences of working with unavailable prescriptions. Further, Wade Thompson and Charlotte Rossing are acknowledged for valuable input to the manuscript. Finally, the authors would like to thank the following 24 community pharmacies for participating in the study: Aalborg Løve Pharmacy, Albertslund Pharmacy, Bolbro Pharmacy, Brøndby Strand Pharmacy, Copenhagen Sønderbro Pharmacy, Egtved Pharmacy, Frederikssund Pharmacy, Friheden Pharmacy, Grenaa Pharmacy, Hvidovre Station Pharmacy, Korup Pharmacy, Lindholm Pharmacy, Nørresundby Pharmacy, Odense Ørnen Pharmacy, Otterup Pharmacy, Pharmacy Friheden’s Butikscenter, Solsiden’s Pharmacy, Søndersø Pharmacy, Tarup Pharmacy, Vallensbæk Pharmacy, Vejen Pharmacy, Viborg Løve Pharmacy, Vodskov Pharmacy, and Vojens Pharmacy.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

Carina Lundby, Anne Vejrum Nielsen, Susanne Bendixen, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir and Anton Pottegård declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11096_2019_831_MOESM1_ESM.doc (84 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 83 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Harvey J, Avery AJ, Barber N. A qualitative study of community pharmacy perceptions of the Electronic Prescriptions Service in England. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014;22:440–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey J, Avery AJ, Hibberd R, Barber N. Meeting user needs in national healthcare systems: lessons from early adopter community pharmacists using the electronic prescriptions service. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2014;14:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nanji KC, Rothschild JM, Boehne JJ, Keohane CA, Ash JS, Poon EG. Unrealized potential and residual consequences of electronic prescribing on pharmacy workflow in the outpatient pharmacy. J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2014;21:481–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to Medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pharmakon. [Network for Research and Development of Pharmacy Practice] (in Danish) [Internet]. [cited 2018 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.pharmakon.dk/apotek-primaer-sundhedssektor/apoteksnetvaerk/.
  6. 6.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42:377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2018. Oslo, Norway; 2017.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garfield S, Hibberd R, Barber N. English community pharmacists’ experiences of using electronic transmission of prescriptions: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rupp MT, Warholak TL. Evaluation of e-prescribing in chain community pharmacy: best-practice recommendations. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48:364–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emmerton L, Marriott J, Bessell T, Nissen L, Dean L. Pharmacists and prescribing rights: review of international developments. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005;8:217–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hospital Pharmacy FunenOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  2. 2.OPEN, Odense Patient Data Explorative NetworkOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  3. 3.Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Department of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense CDenmark
  4. 4.Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of PharmacyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen ØDenmark
  5. 5.Copenhagen Sønderbro PharmacyCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations