MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183605385 · doi:10.2196/28381

Robotic Pharmacy Implementation and Outcomes in Saudi Arabia: A 21-Month Usability Study

2021· article· en· W3183605385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hisham Momattin, Shokry Arafa, Shahad Momattin, Rayan Rahal, James Waterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBD
KeywordsPharmacyPharmacistUsabilityPatient satisfactionMedicineMedical prescriptionService (business)Family medicineNursingMedical emergencyComputer scienceBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We describe the introduction, use, and evaluation of an automation and integration pharmacy development program in a private facility in Saudi Arabia. The project was specifically undertaken to increase throughput, reduce medication dispensing error rates, improve patient satisfaction, and free up pharmacists' time to allow for increased face-to-face consultations with patients. OBJECTIVE: We forecasted growth of our outpatient service at 25% per annum over 5- and 10-year horizons and set out to prepare our outpatient pharmacy service to meet this demand. Initial project goals were set as a 50% reduction in the average patient wait time, a 15% increase in patient satisfaction regarding pharmacy wait time and pharmacy services, a 25% increase in pharmacist productivity, and zero dispensing errors. This was expected to be achieved within 10 months of go-live. Realignment of pharmacist activity toward counseling and medication review with patients was a secondary goal, along with the rapid development of a reputation in the served community for patient-centered care. METHODS: Preimplementation data for patient wait time for dispensing of prescribed medications as a specific measure of patient satisfaction was gathered as part of wider ongoing data collection in this field. Pharmacist activity and productivity in terms of patient interaction time were gathered. Reported and discovered dispensing errors per 1000 prescriptions were also aggregated. All preimplementation data was gathered over an 11-month period. RESULTS: From go-live, data were gathered on the above metrics in 1-month increments. At the 10-month point, there had been a 53% reduction in the average wait time, a 20% increase in patient satisfaction regarding pharmacy wait time, with a 22% increase in overall patient satisfaction regarding pharmacy services, and a 33% increase in pharmacist productivity. A zero dispensing error rate was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic pharmacy solution studied was highly effective, but a robust upstream supply chain is vital to ensure stock levels, particularly when automated filling is planned. The automation solution must also be seamlessly and completely integrated into the facility's software systems for appointments, medication records, and prescription generation in order to garner its full benefits. Overall patient satisfaction with pharmacy services is strongly influenced by wait time and follow-up studies are required to identify how to use this positive effect and make optimal use of freed-up pharmacist time. The extra time spent by pharmacists with patients and the opportunity for complete overview of the patient's medication history, which full integration provides, may allow us to address challenging issues such as medication nonadherence. Reduced wait times may also allow for smaller prescription fill volumes, and more frequent outpatient department visits, allowing patients to have increased contact time with pharmacists.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207