ABSTRACT
Objective: Two types of symbols have been established as industry standards in terms of two-dimensional (2D) symbols with prescription information: one for objects to be printed on prescriptions and the other for electronic versions of medication diaries. However, no studies have investigated the system for using 2D symbols in pharmacies and hospitals/clinics as well as the quality of the information actually stored in these 2D symbols. Therefore, we conducted a survey to clarify the current status and problems pertaining to prescription information sharing via 2D symbols.Methods: We distributed questionnaires to community pharmacies through the Fukui Pharmaceutical Association and asked them to cooperate with us during the survey. The list of items in the survey included the installation status of devices necessary for reading 2D symbols at each pharmacy, receipt computer in use, and status of the support issued by hospitals/clinics for reading 2D symbols. At the same time, we received 2D symbols created by community pharmacies and conducted reading tests to examine issues related to the collection of prescription information via 2D symbols at medical institutions.Results: The response rate for the survey was 21.8%. Among the 57 stores that responded to the survey, 26 (45.6%) answered that they could read prescription symbols, and 22 of them had actually used the system till date. In addition, 38 community pharmacies were able to provide the 2D symbols for medication diaries. Of the 30 provided symbols for medication diaries, 16 (53.3%) could be read as Japanese data by the barcode reader used.Conclusions: It has become clear that the 2D symbols with stored prescription information are not being completely utilized at present, as both community pharmacies and hospitals/clinics face several issues such as hardware maintenance, software updates, and time and effort required for the usage.
ABSTRACT
Objective: We evaluated patients’ degree of understanding of the effects and adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors.Methods: We targeted 26 patients who were administered SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalizations between April 2017 and March 2018. The survey was conducted by interviewing the patients using a questionnaire.Results: In total, 14 patients (53. 8%) were able to explain the term “efficacy.” Although 6 patients (23. 1%) understood “dehydration,” there was little understanding of “urinary tract infection” (7.7%) and “rash/erythema” (2 and 0 patients, respectively). In addition, we confirmed the details of the descriptions of adverse reactions caused by SGLT2 inhibitors with pharmacists, and found that 13 patients (50.0%) clearly received an explanation of “dehydration,” only 3 patients received an explanation of “urinary tract infection” (11.5%), and none of them comprehended “rash/erythema.” Overall, the patients’ awareness of the adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors was low.Conclusion: Unlike common drugs for diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have been attracting attention as protective agents of the heart and kidneys. Therefore, it is expected that prescriptions for SGLT2 will increase in the future. Pharmacists need to explain the effects and adverse drug reactions of SGLT2 inhibitors to the patients as well as make the patients understand the pharmacological mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors.
