Class of 2006 Abstract / Background: Patients with a medication adherence rate of 80-90 % have the highest incidence of developing drug resistance Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The optimal adherence rate of 95% is believed to be necessary to prevent resistance to medication therapy in HIV infected patients. This level of adherence can be difficult to achieve because of the complications and complexity of medication regimens currently available for HIV treatment. Objectives: To determine if therapeutic goals set by the patient by having interventional meetings with a pharmacist improved their medication compliance rate and laboratory monitoring. Study Design: A retrospective chart review. Setting: One HIV clinic with two sites. Patients: The estimated population of the clinic was 150 patients. Only data from 14 patients met the criteria of the study and was available for collection. Intervention: Patients met initially with a pharmacist and made medication therapy goals. The patients then returned to the pharmacist at least once in a six-month period to evaluate if the goals were achieved. Measurements: CD4+ counts and viral loads from 6 months before the start of the intervention, at the beginning of intervention, and at least 6 months after the intervention were collected for analysis. Self-reports of achieving goals and self reported compliance were also collected. Results: The results showed there was no significant change in the CD+4 count in either the pre vs. baseline (p=0.0.967) or baseline vs. post- (p=0.551). There was also no significant change in the viral load in either the pre vs. baseline (p=0.388) or baseline vs. post (p=0.344). The mean (± SD) number of pharmacist visits was 2.93 (± 1.77). There was no significant improvement in viral loads (p=0.359) and CD4+ counts (p=0.268) between patient who reported missing medications and those who reported not missing doses. The same was true for patients who reported they met self-goals and those who reported they did not meet their goals (viral load p= 0.421 and CD4+ p=0.411). Conclusions: This study found no significant association between patients who set their own therapeutic goals and visited with a pharmacist and those who did not. However, an important limitation is that only 14 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study and had the required data available. Additional research is needed to more fully evaluate this intervention.

No description available.

No

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Class of 2017 Abstract / Objectives: To explore the available literature for information on the types of medication errors committed in community pharmacies, the rate of occurrence, and potential causation of those errors. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed for articles dating from 1995-present concerning medication errors committed in community pharmacies. A total of eight studies were used in the evaluation. Results: Error types identified in the literature include content errors, labeling errors, near errors, clinically significant errors, and any other deviation from the prescriber's original order. Each study had its own individual error rate. Combining all studies reviewed, the overall average error rate was 2.2% (516 errors out of 23,455 prescriptions total). Proposed causation of medication dispensing errors include low lighting levels, high sound levels, the use of manual prescription inspection alone, pharmacy design, problems with efficiency, the use of drive through pick up windows, errors in communication, high prescription volume, high pharmacist workload, inadequate pharmacy staffing, and the use of dispensing software programs that provide alerts and clinical information. Conclusions: The available literature proposes that medication-dispensing errors in community pharmacies continue to be a frequent issue. Error types include content, labeling, clinically significant, near errors, and any other deviation from the prescriber's original order. Of the observed errors, labeling was most frequent. The data indicated low lighting, amplified noise, and sociotechnical factors could contribute to error frequency. Future studies are required to focus on other potential causes of dispensing errors and how to minimize rate of occurrence.