James K Lynette, Barlow Dave, Bithell Anne, Burfield Robin, Hiom Sarah, Lord Sue, Pollard Mike, Roberts Dave, Way Cheryl, Sutton Caroline, Whittlesea Cate
Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Int J Pharm Pract. 2011 Aug;19(4):264-75. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2010.00086.x. Epub 2011 Feb 25.
To compare dispensary workload, determined using the Welsh benchmarking event recording technique and the direct time technique, at two district general UK National Health Service hospitals within different university local health Boards (hospital A--manual dispensing system; hospital B--automated dispensing system).
Data on dispensary workload were collected, over a period of 6 weeks (hospital A: 8 May-18 June 2007; hospital B: 1 October-11 November 2007), by a non-participant observer using two simultaneous methods of workload measurement: direct time and event recording. Direct time technique involved timing each task involved in dispensing a sample of prescriptions from receipt to issue of dispensed medicines to patients. Welsh benchmarking event recording involved continuously logging staff activities that deviated from the dispensary rota on a data collection form to enable calculation of total staff time involved in dispensing activities. Data on number of items dispensed were obtained from the pharmacy computer system and also by manual counting of prescription items. The mean dispensary workloads were calculated as the number of items dispensed per person per hour. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare dispensary workload measurements determined using direct time and event recording technique reported by each individual hospital. Mean workloads for hospitals A and B were compared using a two-sample t-test. Statistical significance was taken as P≤0.05.
Hospital A was associated with a lower workload (direct time: 7.27±7.16 items per person per hour; event recording: 9.57±10.6 items per person per hour). In contrast, hospital B gave a higher workload (direct time: 11.93±8.3 items per person per hour; event recording: 12.6±8.80 items per person per hour). There was a significant difference between workload (direct time: P<0.01; event recording: P<0.01) reported for both hospitals. The direct time and event recording techniques produced consistent results at each hospital (hospital A: t=0.02, P=0.99; hospital B: t=0.004, P=0.1).
The direct time and Welsh benchmarking event recording techniques produced consistent results at both hospitals. Thus the Welsh benchmarking event recording technique is a valid and reproducible method of measuring dispensary workload. Hospital B (automated) had a higher workload than hospital A (manual). Further work is required to investigate the impact of automation on dispensary workload.
运用威尔士基准事件记录技术和直接计时技术，比较英国两家隶属于不同大学地方健康委员会的地区综合国民健康服务医院药房的工作量（医院A——手工配药系统；医院B——自动配药系统）。
在6周时间内（医院A：2007年5月8日至6月18日；医院B：2007年10月1日至11月11日），由一名非参与观察人员使用两种同步的工作量测量方法收集药房工作量数据：直接计时法和事件记录法。直接计时技术包括对从接收处方到将配好的药品发放给患者这一过程中配药所涉及的每项任务进行计时。威尔士基准事件记录法要求持续在数据收集表上记录偏离药房排班表的员工活动，以便计算参与配药活动的员工总时间。从药房计算机系统获取所配药品数量的数据，同时也通过人工清点处方药品数量来获取。平均药房工作量计算为每人每小时所配药品数量。使用双样本t检验比较各医院采用直接计时法和事件记录法所确定的药房工作量测量值。使用双样本t检验比较医院A和医院B的平均工作量。统计学显著性以P≤0.05为准。
医院A的工作量较低（直接计时法：每人每小时7.27±7.16件；事件记录法：每人每小时9.57±10.6件）。相比之下，医院B的工作量较高（直接计时法：每人每小时11.93±8.3件；事件记录法：每人每小时12.6±8.80件）。两家医院报告的工作量之间存在显著差异（直接计时法：P<0.01；事件记录法：P<0.01）。直接计时法和事件记录法在每家医院得出的结果一致（医院A：t = 0.02，P = 0.99；医院B：t = 0.004，P = 0.1）。
直接计时法和威尔士基准事件记录法在两家医院都得出了一致的结果。因此，威尔士基准事件记录法是一种有效且可重复的测量药房工作量的方法。医院B（自动化）的工作量高于医院A（手工）。需要进一步开展工作来研究自动化对药房工作量的影响。
