Dataset Information

What causes prescribing errors in children? Scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

(1) Systematically assemble, analyse and synthesise published evidence on causes of prescribing error in children. (2) Present results to a multidisciplinary group of paediatric prescribing stakeholders to validate findings and establish how causative factors lead to errors in practice.

Design

Scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, including stakeholder consultation; qualitative evidence synthesis.

Methods

We followed the six scoping review stages. (1) Research question-the research question was 'What is known about causes of prescribing error in children?' (2) Search strategy-we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (from inception to February 2018), grey literature and reference lists of included studies. (3) Article selection-all published evidence contributing information on the causes of prescribing error in children was eligible for inclusion. We included review articles as secondary evidence to broaden understanding. (4) Charting data-results were collated in a custom data charting form. (5) Reporting results-we summarised article characteristics, extracted causal evidence and thematically synthesised findings. (6) Stakeholder consultation-results were presented to a multidisciplinary focus group of six prescribing stakeholders to establish validity, relevance and mechanisms by which causes lead to errors in practice.

Results

68 articles were included. We identified six main causes of prescribing errors: children's fundamental differences led to individualised dosing and calculations; off-licence prescribing; medication formulations; communication with children; and experience working with children. Primary evidence clarifying causes was lacking.

Conclusions

Specific factors complicate prescribing for children and increase risk of errors. Primary research is needed to confirm and elaborate these causes of error. In the meantime, this review uses existing evidence to make provisional paediatric-specific recommendations for policy, practice and education.

SUBMITTER: Conn RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6701596 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What causes prescribing errors in children? Scoping review.

Conn Richard L RL Kearney Orla O Tully Mary P MP Shields Michael D MD Dornan Tim T

BMJ open 20190810 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>(1) Systematically assemble, analyse and synthesise published evidence on causes of prescribing error in children. (2) Present results to a multidisciplinary group of paediatric prescribing stakeholders to validate findings and establish how causative factors lead to errors in practice.<h4>Design</h4>Scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, including stakeholder consultation; qualitative evidence synthesis.<h4>Methods</h4>We followed the six scoping review stages. ...[more]

PMID: 31401597

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing errors are common. It has been suggested that the severity as well as the frequency of errors should be assessed when measuring prescribing error rates. This would provide more clinically relevant information, and allow more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce errors.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to describe the tools used to assess prescribing error severity in studies reporting hospital prescribing error rates.Data sourcesThe following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and CINAHL (January 1985-January 2013).Study selectionWe included studies that reported the detection and rate of prescribing errors in prescriptions for adult and/or pediatric hospital inpatients, or elaborated on the properties of severity assessment tools used by these studies. Studies not published in English, or that evaluated errors for only one disease or drug class, one route of administration, or one type of prescribing error, were excluded, as were letters and conference abstracts. One reviewer screened all abstracts and obtained complete articles. A second reviewer assessed 10 % of all abstracts and complete articles to check reliability of the screening process.AppraisalTools were appraised for country and method of development, whether the tool assessed actual or potential harm, levels of severity assessed, and results of any validity and reliability studies.ResultsFifty-seven percent of 107 studies measuring prescribing error rates included an assessment of severity. Forty tools were identified that assessed severity, only two of which had acceptable reliability and validity. In general, little information was given on the method of development or ease of use of the tools, although one tool required four reviewers and was thus potentially time consuming.LimitationsThe review was limited to studies written in English. One of the review authors was also the author of one of the tools, giving a potential source of bias.ConclusionA wide range of severity assessment tools are used in the literature. Developing a basis of comparison between tools would potentially be helpful in comparing findings across studies. There is a potential need to establish a less time-consuming method of measuring severity of prescribing error, with acceptable international reliability and validity.

Project description:ObjectivesStudy objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing.MethodA three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors' self-efficacy were established.Results4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p<0.001), surgical (p = <0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather thanmedical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p<0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p<0.001) and the months December and June (p<0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen.ConclusionsPrescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

Project description:Prescribing errors represent a safety risk for hospitalized patients, especially in pediatrics. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) might reduce prescribing errors, although its effect has not yet been thoroughly studied on pediatric general wards. This study investigated the impact of a CPOE on prescribing errors in children on general wards at the University Children's Hospital Zurich. We performed medication reviews on a total of 1000 patients before and after the implementation of a CPOE. The CPOE included limited clinical decision support (CDS) such as drug-drug interaction check and checks for duplicates. Prescribing errors, their type according to the PCNE classification, their severity (adapted NCC MERP index), as well as the interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa), were analyzed. Potentially harmful errors were significantly reduced from 18 errors/100 prescriptions (95% CI: 17-20) to 11 errors/100 prescriptions (95% CI: 9-12) after CPOE implementation. A large number of errors with low potential for harm (e.g., "missing information") was reduced after the introduction of the CPOE, and consequently, the overall severity of potential harm increased post-CPOE. Despite general error rate reduction, medication reconciliation problems (PCNE error 8), such as drugs prescribed on paper as well as electronically, significantly increased after the introduction of the CPOE. The most common pediatric prescribing errors, the dosing errors (PCNE errors 3), were not altered on a statistically significant level after the introduction of the CPOE. Interrater reliability showed moderate agreement (Κ = 0.48). Conclusion: Patient safety increased by reducing the rate of prescribing errors after CPOE implementation. The reason for the observed increase in medication reconciliation problems might be the hybrid system with remaining paper prescriptions for special medication. The lacking effect on dosing errors could be explained by the fact that a web application CDS covering dosing recommendations (PEDeDose) was already in use before the implementation of the CPOE. Further investigations should focus on eliminating hybrid systems, interventions to increase the usability of the CPOE, and full integration of CDS tools such as automated dose checks into the CPOE. What is Known: • Prescribing errors, especially dosing errors, are a common safety threat for pediatric inpatients. •The introduction of a CPOE may reduce prescribing errors, though pediatric general wards are poorly studied. What is New: •To our knowledge, this is the first study on prescribing errors in pediatric general wards in Switzerland investigating the impact of a CPOE. •We found that the overall error rate was significantly reduced after the implementation of the CPOE. The severity of potential harm was higher in the post-CPOE period, which implies that low-severity errors were substantially reduced after CPOE implementation. Dosing errors were not reduced, but missing information errors and drug selection errors were reduced. On the other hand, medication reconciliation problems increased.

Project description:IntroductionIn university hospital settings most prescriptions are written by junior doctors, who are more likely to make prescribing errors than experienced doctors. Prescribing errors can cause serious harm to patients and drug harm differs among low, middle and high-income countries. In Brazil, few studies have investigated the causes of these errors. Our aim was to explore medication prescribing errors in a teaching hospital, their causes, and underlying factors from the perspective of junior doctors.MethodQualitative, descriptive and exploratory study that used a semi-structured individual interview with questions related to the planning and execution of prescriptions. It was conducted with 34 junior doctors who graduated from twelve different universities located in six Brazilian states. The data were analyzed according to the Reason's Accident Causation model.ResultsAmong the 105 errors reported, medication omission stood out. Most errors resulted from unsafe acts during execution, followed by mistakes and violations. Many errors reached the patients; unsafe acts of rule violations and slips accounted for the majority. Work overload and time pressure were the most frequently reported causes. Difficulties faced by the National Health System and organizational problems were identified as latent conditions.ConclusionThe results reaffirm international findings about the severity of prescribing errors and the multifactorial aspect of their causes. Unlike other studies, we found a large number of violations, which, from the interviewees' perspectives, are related to socioeconomic and cultural patterns. The violations were not seen or mentioned by the interviewees as violations, but as difficulties in accomplishing their tasks on time. Knowing these patterns and perspectives is important for implementing strategies to improve the safety of both patients and professionals involved in the medication process. It is suggested that the exploitation culture of junior doctors' work be discouraged and that their training be improved and prioritized.

Dataset Information

What causes prescribing errors in children? Scoping review.

Objectives

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

What causes prescribing errors in children? Scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets