Unit packaging
On this page11
The different rate
Child resistant effectiveness of "not less than 80 percent" for unit packaging, against "not less than 85 percent without a demonstration" for reclosable packaging.
Why the standard treats them differently
A reclosable bottle is a single barrier a child attacks once and then has everything. A blister is a barrier per dose, so getting into one cell is not getting into the package.
Which changes the risk arithmetic
A child who defeats a bottle can take a whole course. A child who defeats one blister cell has one tablet, and the time and effort scale with the quantity.
And resecuring stops being a question
The senior adult test asks about resecuring "if appropriate". For a unit package there is nothing to resecure, which removes the failure mode where a client leaves the cap off.
Which is a real advantage for a dispensed course
An older client who struggles with a push-and-turn cap may do perfectly well with a blister, and the dose is counted for them by the packaging.
It also makes compliance visible
An empty cell is a dose taken. For a client giving a medication to an animal twice a day for ten days, that is a better record than trying to remember.
This shelf does not have it
Blisters and unit-dose packaging are a different manufacturing route entirely, and nothing on this shelf is one. The honest answer is that we serve the bottle route.
Which is worth saying to a clinic
If unit packaging is what the client needs, that is a conversation with a different supplier. Saying so keeps the relationship and loses one line item.
The bottle route has its own strengths
A liquid cannot be blistered, a flexible dose cannot be pre-counted, and a compounded preparation is made per patient. For three of the six leaves here the bottle is the only option.
So match the format to the course
A fixed ten-day course of tablets and a variable liquid dose are different packaging problems, and only the first has two real answers.