***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: STUDY OBJECTIVE Our objectives are to describe the outcomes of patients presenting to the emergency department ( ED ) because of an adverse drug event and to compare them with outcomes of patients presenting for other reasons . METHODS This prospect i ve observational study was conducted at Vancouver General Hospital , a 955-bed tertiary care hospital . We prospect ively enrolled adults presenting to the ED between March and June 2006 , using a systematic sampling algorithm .  Pharmacists and physicians independently evaluated patients for adverse drug events . An independent committee review ed and adjudicated cases in which assessment s were discordant or uncertain . Data from the index visit were linked to vital statistics , administrative health services utilization , and cost of care data . RESULTS Of 1,000 patients , 122 ( 12.2 % ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 10.3 % to 14.4 % ) presented to the ED because of an adverse drug event . Of these , 48 presented because of an adverse drug reaction ( one type of adverse drug event defined as an unintended response that occurred despite use of an appropriate drug dosage ) . We found no difference in mortality among patients presenting with and without adverse drug reactions ( 14.6 % versus 5.9 % ; hazard ratio 1.57 ; 95 % CI 0.70 to 3.52 ) . After adjustment , patients with adverse drug events had a higher risk of spending additional days in the hospital per month ( 6.3 % versus 3.4 % ; odds ratio 1.52 ; 95 % CI 1.43 to 1.62 ) and higher rate of outpatient health care encounters ( 1.73 versus 1.22 ; rate ratio 1.20 ; 95 % CI 1.03 to 1.40 ) . The adjusted median monthly cost of care was 1.90 times higher ( Can $ 325 versus $ 96 ; 95 % CI 1.18 to 3.08 ) . CONCLUSION ED patients presenting with an adverse drug event incurred greater health services utilization and costs during a 6-month follow-up period compared with patients presenting for other reasons PURPOSE Results of the 2011 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital setting s that pertain to dispensing and administration are presented . METHODS A stratified r and om sample of pharmacy directors at 1401 general and children 's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail . RESULTS In this national probability sample survey , the response rate was 40.1 % . De central ization of the medication-use system continues , with 40 % of hospitals using a de central ized system and 58 % of hospitals planning to use a de central ized model in the future . Automated dispensing cabinets were used by 89 % of hospitals , robots were used by 11 % , carousels were used in 18 % , and machine-readable coding was used in 34 % of hospitals to verify doses before dispensing . Overall , 65 % of hospitals had a United States Pharmacopeia chapter 797 compliant cleanroom for compounding sterile preparations . Medication administration records ( MARs ) have become increasingly computerized , with 67 % of hospitals using electronic MARs . Bar-code-assisted medication administration was used in 50 % of hospitals , and 68 % of hospitals had smart infusion pumps . Health information is becoming more electronic , with 67 % of hospitals having partially or completely implemented an electronic health record and 34 % of hospitals having computerized prescriber order entry . The use of these technologies has substantially increased over the past year . The average number of full-time equivalent staff per 100 occupied beds averaged 17.5 for pharmacists and 15.0 for technicians . Directors of pharmacy reported declining vacancy rates for pharmacists . CONCLUSION Pharmacists continue to improve medication use at the dispensing and administration steps of the medication-use system . The adoption of new technology is changing the philosophy of medication distribution , and health information is rapidly becoming electronic Objectives : We aim ed to assess the impact of an automated dispensing system on the incidence of medication errors related to picking , preparation , and administration of drugs in a medical intensive care unit . We also evaluated the clinical significance of such errors and user satisfaction . Design : Preintervention and postintervention study involving a control and an intervention medical intensive care unit . Setting : Two medical intensive care units in the same department of a 2,000-bed university hospital . Patients : Adult medical intensive care patients . Interventions : After a 2-month observation period , we implemented an automated dispensing system in one of the units ( study unit ) chosen r and omly , with the other unit being the control . Measurements and Main Results : The overall error rate was expressed as a percentage of total opportunities for error . The severity of errors was classified according to National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention categories by an expert committee . User satisfaction was assessed through self-administered question naires completed by nurses . A total of 1,476 medications for 115 patients were observed . After automated dispensing system implementation , we observed a reduced percentage of total opportunities for error in the study compared to the control unit ( 13.5 % and 18.6 % , respectively ; p < .05 ) ; however , no significant difference was observed before automated dispensing system implementation ( 20.4 % and 19.3 % , respectively ; not significant ) . Before- and -after comparisons in the study unit also showed a significantly reduced percentage of total opportunities for error ( 20.4 % and 13.5 % ; p < .01 ) . An analysis of detailed opportunities for error showed a significant impact of the automated dispensing system in reducing preparation errors ( p < .05 ) . Most errors caused no harm ( National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention category C ) . The automated dispensing system did not reduce errors causing harm . Finally , the mean for working conditions improved from 1.0 ± 0.8 to 2.5 ± 0.8 on the four-point Likert scale . Conclusions : The implementation of an automated dispensing system reduced overall medication errors related to picking , preparation , and administration of drugs in the intensive care unit . Furthermore , most nurses favored the new drug dispensation organization Automated medication distribution systems have helped solve issues of efficiency and effectiveness . Cost-benefit analysis conducted by nursing and pharmacy departments can help to objectify the decision to adopt this technology PURPOSE The results of the 2014 ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital setting s that pertain to dispensing and administration are described . METHODS A stratified r and om sample of pharmacy directors at 1435 general and children 's medical-surgical hospitals in the United States were surveyed by mail . RESULTS In this national probability sample survey , the response rate was 29.7 % . Ninety-seven percent of hospitals used automated dispensing cabinets in their medication distribution systems , 65.7 % of which used individually secured lidded pockets as the predominant configuration . Overall , 44.8 % of hospitals used some form of  machine-readable coding to verify doses before dispensing in the pharmacy . Overall , 65 % of hospital pharmacy departments reported having a cleanroom compliant with United States Pharmacopeia chapter 797 . Pharmacists review ed and approved all medication orders before the first dose was administered , either onsite or by remote order view , except in procedure areas and emergency situations , in 81.2 % of hospitals . Adoption rates of electronic health information have rapidly increased , with the widespread use of electronic health records , computer prescriber order entry , barcodes , and smart pumps . Overall , 31.4 % of hospitals had pharmacists practicing in ambulatory or primary care clinics . Transitions-of-care services offered by the pharmacy department have generally increased since 2012 . Discharge prescription services increased from 11.8 % of hospitals in 2012 to 21.5 % in 2014 . Approximately 15 % of hospitals out source d pharmacy management operations to a contract pharmacy services provider , an increase from 8 % in 2011 . CONCLUSION Health-system pharmacists continue to have a positive impact on improving healthcare through programs that improve the efficiency , safety , and clinical outcomes of medication use in health systems 
    Output:
    
It appears that ADDs were effective in reducing medication storage errors and the time that nurses spent taking inventory of narcotics and controlled substances .
There was no definitive evidence that using ADDs increased the time that nurses or pharmacists spent with patients , reduced medication errors result ing in patient harm , or reduced costs in Canadian hospitals .
However , pharmacy technicians spent more time stocking the machines .
ADDs have limited potential to decrease medication errors and increase efficiencies , but their impact is highly institution-specific , and use of this technology requires proper integration into an institution 's medication distribution process .