International Archives of Medicine


Open Access Highly Access Original research

Fertility patients and their prescriptions: a two-year audit of patient-pharmacist interactions in a reproductive endocrinology practice

Eric S Sills1*, Serhiy A Shurpyak2, Deirdre J Gorman1, Lyuda V Shkrobot1, Grainne U Murray1, Beppi MG O'Connor1, Una E Rapple1, Alicia O Fogarty1, Pavlina Svarkova1, Kathy M Brickell1 and David J Walsh1

Author Affiliations

1 The Sims Institute and Sims International Fertility Clinic, Dublin, Ireland

2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine

For all author emails, please log on.

International Archives of Medicine 2009, 2:24 doi:10.1186/1755-7682-2-24

Published: 3 August 2009

Abstract

Background

This study assessed pharmacy performance and satisfaction as reported by patients during ovulation induction therapy.

Materials and methods

Patients (n = 1269) receiving gonadotropin prescriptions for intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer in 2007–2008 were prospectively interviewed by nurses and/or completed a structured questionnaire to evaluate pharmacy performance. "Community" (n = 12) and "specialty" (n = 2) pharmacy status (C vs. S) was defined by each pharmacy, and all pharmacies were selected by patients before cycle start. Patient comments about their pharmacy were classified into five types: i) Dispensing error-gonadotropin, ii) Dispensing error-non gonadotropin, iii) Mistake in prescribed medical equipment/supplies, iv) Counselling/communication inaccuracy, and v) Inventory problem or other.

Results

391 pharmacy concerns were reported from 150 fertility patients during the study period. The majority (75.9%) of patients selected a S pharmacy to fill their prescriptions, and this pharmacy type was identified in 2.8% of adverse pharmacy encounters (p < 0.0001). Non-gonadotropin prescriptions filled at C pharmacies accounted for 40.2% of all complaints, followed by problems with prescriptions for supplies (20.2%) and gonadotropins (18.7%) at C pharmacies. Patient conflict involving S pharmacies was limited (n = 11), and related to operating hours and medication delivery logistics.

Conclusion

Fertility patients reported a disproportionate and significantly higher number of adverse pharmacy encounters from C pharmacies compared to S pharmacies. Although no licensing mechanism in Ireland currently recognises special training or certification in any area of pharmacy practice, informal self-designations by pharmacies remain a useful discriminator. Level of familiarity with fertility medicines and availability of inventory are important characteristics to be considered when counselling fertility patients about pharmacy choice. Those who select a C pharmacy should be advised to allow extra time for inventory verification, order confirmation, and additional counselling. Additional study is needed to determine if a minimum volume of fertility-related prescriptions is necessary to assure competence in this particular field of pharmacy practice.