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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Health Resources and Services Administration. The Pharmacist Workforce: a study of the supply and demand for pharmacists. bhpr.hrsa.gov:80/healthworkforce/pharmacist.html (accessed 2002 May 16).
2.
American Pharmaceutical Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. White paper on pharmacy technicians: Recommendations of pharmacy practitioner organizations on the functions, training, and regulation of technicians. J Am Pharm Assoc1996; NS36: 515–8.
CowleyEBakerKR. Liability for errors in expanded pharmacy practice: Issues for technicians and pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc2000; 40 (5 suppl 1): S56–7.
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP-accredited pharmacy technician training program directory. www.ashp.com/directories/technician/index.cfm (accessed 2002 Aug 31).
North Carolina Board of Pharmacy Newsletter On The Web. Item 1155 — Pharmacy technicians. www.ncbop.org/item1155.asp (accessed 2002 Aug 23).
29.
Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy. Pharmacy technician training guidelines — Phase I and II. www.pharmacy.state.ok.us/techguid.pdf (accessed 2002 Dec 21).
30.
Oregon State Board of Pharmacy. Oregon administrative rules chapter 855, division 041 — Board of pharmacy. www.pharmacy.state.or.us/rules/div041.pdf (accessed 2002 Aug 23).
FullerTSNessJE. Current status of pharmacy technician unit-dose checking in the United States. In: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA 1970–2002). WebSPIRS/IPA v4.2/33-13675 (accessed 2003 May 9).
38.
AmbrosePJSayaFGLovettLTTanSAdamsDWShaneR.Evaluating the accuracy of technicians and pharmacists in checking unit dose medication cassettes. Am J Health Syst Pharm2002; 59: 1183–8.
39.
DouglasJBWheelerDS. Evaluation of trained pharmacy technicians in identifying dispensing error. In: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA 1970–2002). WebSPIRS/IPA v4.2/31-11647 (accessed 2003 May 9).
40.
GmerekAMAshbyDM. Technicians checking technicians: evaluative study examining the expanded role of the pharmacy technician. In: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA 1970–2002). WebSPIRS/IPA v4.2/28-00549 (accessed 2003 May 9).
41.
GroganJEHannaJAHaightRA. A study of accuracy of pharmacy technicians working in a unit dose system. Hosp Pharm1978; 13: 194–5, 199.
42.
SpoonerSHEmersonPK. Using hospital pharmacy technicians to check unit dose carts. Hosp Pharm1994; 29: 433–4, 436–7.
43.
BeckerMDJohnsonMHLongeRL. Errors remaining in unit dose carts after checking by pharmacists versus pharmacy technicians. Am J Hosp Pharm1978; 35: 432–4.
44.
AndersenSRSt. PeterJVMacresMGSt. PeterWL. Accuracy of technicians versus pharmacists in checking syringes prepared for a dialysis program. Am J Health Syst Pharm1997; 45: 1611–3.
45.
StaffordAM. Accuracy of technician checking. J Mich Pharm1991; 29: 179–80.
46.
NessJESullivanSDStergachisA.Accuracy of technicians and pharmacists in identifying dispensing errors. Am J Hosp Pharm1994; 51: 354–7.
47.
CampbellDTStanleyJC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.
48.
LowJRadleyADoddT.The introduction of checking technicians into Perth Royal Infirmary. Pharm J1997; 25: 278–9.
49.
WollerTWStuartJVrabelRSenstB.Checking of unit dose cassettes by pharmacy technicians at three Minnesota hospitals. Am J Hosp Pharm1991; 48: 1952–6.
50.
FitzgeraldWLSmalleyMDCashH.Pharmacy technicians: Current status in the States. Am Pharm1991; NS31 (6): 35–7.
51.
FacchinettiNJCampbellGMJonesDP. Evaluating dispensing error detection rates in a hospital pharmacy. Med Care1999; 37: 39–43.
52.
MeyerGEBrandellRSmithJEMilewskiFJConiglioM.Use of bar codes in inpatient drug distribution. Am J Hosp Pharm1991; 48: 953–66.
53.
LipowskiEECampbellDEBrushwoodDBWilsonD.Time savings associated with dispensing unit-of-use packages. J Am Pharm Assoc2002; 42: 577–81.
