Effect of automated drug distribution systems on medication error rates in a short‐stay geriatric unit
Open accessAbstract
Rationale, aims and objectives: To assess the impact of an automated drug distribution system on medication errors (MEs). Methods: Before‐after observational study in a 40‐bed short stay geriatric unit within a 1800 bed general hospital in Valenciennes, France. Researchers attended nurse medication administration rounds and compared administered to prescribed drugs, before and after the drug distribution system changed from a ward stock system (WSS) to a unit dose dispensing system (UDDS), integrating a unit dose dispensing robot and automated medication dispensing cabinet (AMDC). Results: A total of 615 opportunities of errors (OEs) were observed among 148 patients treated during the WSS period, and 783 OEs were observed among 166 patients treated during the UDDS period. ME [medication administration error (MAE)] rates were calculated and compared between the two periods. Secondary measures included type of errors, seriousness of errors and risk reduction for the patients. The implementation of an automated drug dispensing system resulted in a 53% reduction in MAEs. All error types were reduced in the UDDS period compared with the WSS period (P < 0.001). Wrong dose and wrong drug errors were reduced by 79.1% (2.4% versus 0.5%, P = 0.005) and 93.7% (1.9% versus 0.01%, P = 0.009), respectively. Conclusion: An automated UDDS combining a unit dose dispensing robot and AMDCs could reduce discrepancies between ordered and administered drugs, thus improving medication safety among the elderly.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ADC implementation resulted in a 79.1% (p = 0.005) reduction of wrong dose and drug MAEs specifically by 93.7% (p = 0.009).
“It was described that ADC implementation resulted in a 79.1 % (p = 0.005) reduction of wrong dose and drug MAEs specifically by 93.7 % (p = 0.009),21”
From Benefits and challenges associated with implementation and ongoing use of automated dispensing cabinet for medicines: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Shulman, R., Singer, M., Goldstone, J., & Bellingan, G. (2005) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc3793 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [1]Kohn KT Corrigan JM Donaldson MS To err is human: building a safer health system 1999 Washington, DC National Academy Press 25077248
- [2]Manasse HR Ferner RE Anton C Increase in US medication-error deaths Lancet 1998 351 9116 1655 1656 9620736
- [3]Landrigan CP Parry GJ Bones CB Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care New England Journal of Medicines 2010 363 22 2124 2134 21105794
- [5]Bates DW Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors Journal of the American Medical Association 1998 280 15 1311 1316 9794308
- [6]Bates DW Teich JM Lee J The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1999 6 4 313 321 10428004 PMC61372
- [7]Poon EG Keohane CA Yoon CS Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration New England Journal of Medicine 2010 362 18 1698 1707 20445181
- [8]Schimmel AM Becker ML Van Den Bout T The impact of type of manual medication cart filling method on the frequency of medication administration errors: a prospective before and after study International Journal of Nursing Studies 2011 48 7 791 797 21247578
- [9]Taxis K Dean B Barber N Hospital drug distribution systems in the UK and Germany-a study of medication errors Pharmacy World and Science 1999 21 1 25 31 10214665
- [10]Barker KN The effects of an experimental medication system on medication errors and costs. I. Introduction and errors study American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 1969 26 6 324 333 5797287
- [11]Paparella S Automated medication dispensing systems: not error free Journal of Emergency Nursing 2006 32 1 71 74 16439294
- [12]Chapuis C Roustit M Bal G Automated drug dispensing system reduces medication errors in an intensive care setting Critical Care Medicine 2010 38 12 2275 2281 20838333
- [13]Flynn EA Barker KN Pepper GA Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2002 59 5 436 446 11887410
- [14]Allan EL Barker KN Fundamentals of medication error research American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 1990 47 3 555 571 2180287
- [15]Leonard MS Cimino M Shaha S Risk reduction for adverse drug events through sequential implementation of patient safety initiatives in a children's hospital Pediatrics 2006 118 4 e1124 e1129 17015504
- [16]Fontan J-E Maneglier V Nguyen VX Medication errors in hospitals: computerized unit dose drug dispensing system versus ward stock distribution system Pharmacy World & Science 2003 25 3 112 117 12840964
- [17]Van den Bemt PMLA Idzinga JC Robertz H Medication administration errors in nursing homes using an automated medication dispensing system Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009 16 4 486 492 19390109 PMC2705251
- [18]National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) 1998 Taxonomy of medication errors. Available at http://www.nccmerp.org/medErrorTaxonomy.html. Accessed November 24, 2013 17523185
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jung, Y. Y., Walsh, Á., Patel, J., & Lai, K. (2025) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100599 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“21,55 Jumeau et al. further reported that ADC implementation reduced number of error rates from 5.0 % to 1.0 % ( p = 0.0001).”
Influential
- Authors
- Cousein, E., Mareville, J., Lerooy, A., Caillau, A., Labreuche, J., Dambre, D., Odou, P., Bonte, J., Puisieux, F., Decaudin, B., & Coupé, P.
- Affiliations
- Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes (FR)
- Université Lille Nord de France (FR)
- Université de Lille (FR)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR)
- Department of Biopharmacy, Galenic and Hospital Pharmacy, EA GRIIOT, UDSL Université Lille Nord de France Lille France
- Corresponding author
- Cousein, Etienne
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-06-11
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 678-684
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- PMC
- PMC4524418
- OpenAlex
- W1912336019
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 5.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- medication errors, medication administration errors, unit-dose dispensing, drug safety, elderly patients, wrong dose errors
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Automation, Female, France, Geriatrics, Humans, Male, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Quality of Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
