Dataset Information

Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The frequency of drug prescription errors is high. Excluding errors in decision making, the remaining are mainly due to order ambiguity, non standard nomenclature and writing illegibility. The aim of this study is to analyse, as a part of a continuous quality improvement program, the quality of prescriptions writing for antibiotics, in an Italian University Hospital as a risk factor for prescription errors.

Methods

The point prevalence survey, carried out in May 26-30 2008, involved 41 inpatient Units. Every parenteral or oral antibiotic prescription was analysed for legibility (generic or brand drug name, dose, frequency of administration) and completeness (generic or brand name, dose, frequency of administration, route of administration, date of prescription and signature of the prescriber). Eight doctors (residents in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine) and two pharmacists performed the survey by reviewing the clinical records of medical, surgical or intensive care section inpatients. The antibiotics drug category was chosen because its use is widespread in the setting considered.

Results

Out of 756 inpatients included in the study, 408 antibiotic prescriptions were found in 298 patients (mean prescriptions per patient 1.4; SD +/- 0.6). Overall 92.7% (38/41) of the Units had at least one patient with antibiotic prescription. Legibility was in compliance with 78.9% of generic or brand names, 69.4% of doses, 80.1% of frequency of administration, whereas completeness was fulfilled for 95.6% of generic or brand names, 76.7% of doses, 83.6% of frequency of administration, 87% of routes of administration, 43.9% of dates of prescription and 33.3% of physician's signature. Overall 23.9% of prescriptions were illegible and 29.9% of prescriptions were incomplete. Legibility and completeness are higher in unusual drugs prescriptions.

Conclusion

The Intensive Care Section performed best as far as quality of prescription writing was concerned when compared with the Medical and Surgical Sections.Nevertheless the overall illegibility and incompleteness (above 20%) are unacceptably high. Values need to be improved by enhancing the safety culture and in particular the awareness of the professionals on the consequences that a bad prescription writing can produce.

SUBMITTER: Calligaris L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2695418 | biostudies-literature | 2009 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.

Calligaris Laura L Panzera Angela A Arnoldo Luca L Londero Carla C Quattrin Rosanna R Troncon Maria G MG Brusaferro Silvio S

BMC clinical pharmacology 20090513

<h4>Background</h4>The frequency of drug prescription errors is high. Excluding errors in decision making, the remaining are mainly due to order ambiguity, non standard nomenclature and writing illegibility. The aim of this study is to analyse, as a part of a continuous quality improvement program, the quality of prescriptions writing for antibiotics, in an Italian University Hospital as a risk factor for prescription errors.<h4>Methods</h4>The point prevalence survey, carried out in May 26-30 2 ...[more]

PMID: 19439066

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups.MethodsOur analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square.ResultsOf the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups.ConclusionsAbout 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare prevalence and types of dispensing errors and pharmacists' labelling enhancements, for prescriptions transmitted electronically versus paper prescriptions.DesignNaturalistic stepped wedge study.Setting15 English community pharmacies.InterventionElectronic transmission of prescriptions between prescriber and pharmacy.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of labelling errors, content errors and labelling enhancements (beneficial additions to the instructions), as identified by researchers visiting each pharmacy.ResultsOverall, we identified labelling errors in 5.4% of 16,357 dispensed items, and content errors in 1.4%; enhancements were made for 13.6%. Pharmacists also edited the label for a further 21.9% of electronically transmitted items. Electronically transmitted prescriptions had a higher prevalence of labelling errors (7.4% of 3733 items) than other prescriptions (4.8% of 12,624); OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.76). There was no difference for content errors or enhancements. The increase in labelling errors was mainly accounted for by errors (mainly at one pharmacy) involving omission of the indication, where specified by the prescriber, from the label. A sensitivity analysis in which these cases (n=158) were not considered errors revealed no remaining difference between prescription types.ConclusionsWe identified a higher prevalence of labelling errors for items transmitted electronically, but this was predominantly accounted for by local practice in a single pharmacy, independent of prescription type. Community pharmacists made labelling enhancements to about one in seven dispensed items, whether electronically transmitted or not. Community pharmacists, prescribers, professional bodies and software providers should work together to agree how items should be dispensed and labelled to best reap the benefits of electronically transmitted prescriptions. Community pharmacists need to ensure their computer systems are promptly updated to help reduce errors.

Project description:Medication errors are common in hospitals. These errors can result in adverse drug events (ADEs), which can reduce the health and well-being of patients', and their relatives and caregivers. Interventions have been developed to reduce medication errors, including those that occur at the administration stage.ObjectiveWe aimed to elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) values to prevent hospital medication administration errors.Design and settingAn online, contingent valuation (CV) survey was conducted, using the random card-sort elicitation method, to elicit WTP to prevent medication errors.ParticipantsA representative sample of the UK public.MethodsSeven medication error scenarios, varying in the potential for harm and the severity of harm, were valued. Scenarios were developed with input from: clinical experts, focus groups with members of the public and piloting. Mean and median WTP values were calculated, excluding protest responses or those that failed a logic test. A two-part model (logit, generalised linear model) regression analysis was conducted to explore predictive characteristics of WTP.ResultsResponses were collected from 1001 individuals. The proportion of respondents willing to pay to prevent a medication error increased as the severity of the ADE increased and was highest for scenarios that described actual harm occurring. Mean WTP across the scenarios ranged from £45 (95% CI £36 to £54) to £278 (95% CI £200 to £355). Several factors influenced both the value and likelihood of WTP, such as: income, known experience of medication errors, sex, field of work, marriage status, education level and employment status. Predictors of WTP were not, however, consistent across scenarios.ConclusionsThis CV study highlights how the UK public value preventing medication errors. The findings from this study could be used to carry out a cost-benefit analysis which could inform implementation decisions on the use of technology to reduce medication administration errors in UK hospitals.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antimicrobial use, such as antibiotic intake in viral infections, incorrect dosing and incorrect dosing cycles, has been shown to be an important determinant of the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems represent a potential solution for improving antimicrobial prescribing and containing antimicrobial resistance by supporting clinical decision-making thus optimizing antibiotic use and improving patient outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to examine implementation factors of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals from the perspective of the hospital managers, who have decision-making authority for the organization.MethodsAn online survey was conducted between December 2022 and May 2023 with managers of German hospitals on factors for decision support system implementation. Survey responses were analyzed from 118 respondents through descriptive statistics.ResultsSurvey participants reported openness towards the use of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals but little self-perceived knowledge in this field. Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems appear to be a promising opportunity to improve quality of care and increase treatment safety. Along with the Human-Organization-Technology-fit model attitudes were presented. In particular, user-friendliness of the system and compatibility with existing technical structures are considered to be important for implementation. The uptake of decision support systems also depends on the ability of an organization to create a facilitating environment that helps to address the lack of user knowledge as well as trust in and skepticism towards these systems. This includes the training of user groups and support of the management level. Besides, it has been assessed to be important that potential users are open towards change and perceive an added value of the use of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems.ConclusionThe survey has revealed the perspective of hospital managers on different factors that may help to address implementation challenges for artificial intelligence-based decision support systems in antibiotic prescribing. By combining factors of user perceptions about the systems´ perceived benefits with external factors of system design requirements and contextual conditions, the findings highlight the need for a holistic implementation framework of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems.

Project description:BackgroundA large portion of prescribing errors can be attributed to deficiencies in medication knowledge. These errors are preventable and most often occur at the time of prescription. Antimicrobials are the drug class most common incorrectly prescribed.ObjectiveTo characterize the relationship between clinical competence and antibiotic prescription errors. We also investigated the frequency and severity of antibiotic prescription errors to identify items and attributes of clinical competence which are correlated with the antibiotic prescription error ratio.MethodA cross-sectional study was applied to assess clinical competence of junior medical residents in two reference academic hospitals and a regional hospital in Mexico City. It was conducted during February 2019. We used an infectious disease Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to assess clinical competence and a measure of frequency, and severity of antibiotic prescription errors.ResultsThe number of eligible participants was ~ 255 (hospital meeting attendance), and the number of residents in this study were 51 (~ 20%), 31 were female (60.8%). The mean OSCE score was 0.692 ± 0.073. The inter-item (Cronbach's alpha = 0.927) and inter-station internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.774). The G coefficient in generalizability theory analysis was 0.84. The antibiotic prescription error ratio was 45.1% ± 7%. The most frequent category of severity of antibiotic prescription errors was category E (errors that may contribute to or result in temporary harm to the patient and require intervention), 235 (65.2%). We observed a negative and significant correlation between clinical competence and antibiotic prescription errors (r = -0.33, p < 0.05, CI95% -0.57 to -0.07), which remained significant after controlling for the effect of gender and time since graduation from medical school (r = -0.39, p < 0.01, CI95% -0.625 to -0.118). Using exploratory factor analysis we identified two factors, which explained 69% of the variance in clinical competence, factor 1 evaluated socio-clinical skills and factor 2 evaluated diagnostic-therapeutic skills. Factor 2 was correlated with antibiotic prescription error ratio (r = -0.536, p < 0.001).ConclusionsWe observed a negative correlation between clinical competence and antibiotic prescription error ratio in graduated physicians who have been accepted in a medical specialty. The therapeutic plan, which is a component of the clinical competence score, and the prescription skills had a negative correlation with antibiotic prescription errors. The most frequent errors in antibiotic prescriptions would require a second intervention.

Dataset Information

Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets