The Myth of Multitasking and What It Means for Future Pharmacists.

Am J Pharm Educ

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Published: November 2021

The primary purposes of this study were to determine the extent to which multitasking affects the speed and accuracy with which Doctor of Pharmacy students identify prescription errors and whether there is a relationship between students' self-perception of their multitasking ability and their actual ability. One hundred twenty-one second-year pharmacy students enrolled in the required course Introduction to Dosage Forms spent one week in an experimental (multitasking) condition and one week in a control (undistracted) condition. Subjects were given 10 minutes to check 10 prescriptions and record any identified filling errors. A cellular phone was placed in each room. Subjects in the experimental (multitasking) condition answered a call from a researcher posing as a talkative customer during the prescription-checking task while subjects in the control condition were not interrupted by a cell phone call during the task. Subjects' completion times and accuracy were recorded. When subjects were multitasking, they took significantly longer to complete the prescription-checking task than when they were not multitasking. Furthermore, when subjects were multitasking, they scored significantly lower on the prescription-checking task than when they were not multitasking. Finally, students' self-perceptions of their multitasking abilities were not related to the speed with which they completed the prescription-checking task nor to their accuracy. Multitasking negatively affects speed and accuracy of prescription verification in student pharmacists. Our procedure can be used as an in-class activity to demonstrate the limits of attention and to shape how future pharmacists practice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715974PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8267DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prescription-checking task
16
multitasking
10
future pharmacists
8
speed accuracy
8
pharmacy students
8
experimental multitasking
8
multitasking condition
8
subjects multitasking
8
task multitasking
8
subjects
5

Similar Publications

The Myth of Multitasking and What It Means for Future Pharmacists.

Am J Pharm Educ

November 2021

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The primary purposes of this study were to determine the extent to which multitasking affects the speed and accuracy with which Doctor of Pharmacy students identify prescription errors and whether there is a relationship between students' self-perception of their multitasking ability and their actual ability. One hundred twenty-one second-year pharmacy students enrolled in the required course Introduction to Dosage Forms spent one week in an experimental (multitasking) condition and one week in a control (undistracted) condition. Subjects were given 10 minutes to check 10 prescriptions and record any identified filling errors.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Drawing samples from an indwelling arterial line is the method of choice for frequent blood analysis in adult critical care areas. Sodium chloride 0.9% is the recommended flush solution for maintaining the patency of arterial catheters, but it is easy to confuse with glucose-containing bags on rapid visual examination.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study applied specific aspects of signal detection theory (target salience and decision payoffs) to examine the associations among measured attention and accuracy on a stimulus discrimination task patterned after prescription checking. 85 participants completed the d2 Test of Attention and were assigned to either a control condition with general task instructions or a payoff condition with points accumulated or lost based on ultimate performance. Participants checked simulated product order forms for clerical errors for 40 min.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study examined how self-regulation and task-related motivation were related to the accuracy of error detection and task engagement in a simulated quality control task that mimicked prescription-checking behavior in a pharmacy. Ninety-one participants completed measures of self-regulation, task engagement, and task-related motivation and then checked 80 simulated scripts with inserted error ratios ranging from 26% to 38%. Motivation and task engagement were assessed at the beginning of the task, the midpoint of the task, and after the task was over.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!