Providing feedback to hospital doctors about prescribing errors; a pilot study

Paediatric medication incident reporting: a multicentre comparison study of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system

OBJECTIVES

To compare medication errors identified at audit and via direct observation with medication errors reported to an incident reporting system at paediatric hospitals and to investigate differences in types and severity of errors detected and reported by staff.

METHODS

This is a comparison study at two tertiary referral paediatric hospitals between 2016 and 2020 in Australia. Prescribing errors were identified from a medication chart audit of 7785 patient records. Medication administration errors were identified from a prospective direct observational study of 5137 medication administration doses to 1530 patients. Medication errors reported to the hospitals' incident reporting system were identified and matched with errors identified at audit and observation.

RESULTS

Of 11 302 clinical prescribing errors identified at audit, 3.2 per 1000 errors (95% CI 2.3 to 4.4, n=36) had an incident report. Of 2224 potentially serious prescribing errors from audit, 26.1% (95% CI 24.3 to 27.9, n=580) were detected by staff and 11.2 per 1000 errors (95% CI 7.6 to 16.5, n=25) were reported to the incident system. Although the prescribing error detection rates varied between the two hospitals, there was no difference in incident reporting rates regardless of error severity. Of 40 errors associated with actual patient harm, only 7 (17.5%; 95% CI 8.7% to 31.9%) were detected by staff and 4 (10.0%; 95% CI 4.0% to 23.1%) had an incident report. None of the 2883 clinical medication administration errors observed, including 903 potentially serious errors and 144 errors associated with actual patient harm, had incident reports.

CONCLUSION

Incident reporting data do not provide an accurate reflection of medication errors and related harm to children in hospitals. Failure to detect medication errors is likely to be a significant contributor to low error reporting rates. In an era of electronic health records, new automated approaches to monitor medication safety should be pursued to provide real-time monitoring.

Learning from electronic prescribing errors: a mixed methods study of junior doctors' perceptions of training and individualised feedback data

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of junior doctors towards (1) electronic prescribing (EP) training and feedback, (2) readiness for receiving individualised feedback data about EP errors and (3) preferences for receiving and learning from EP feedback.

DESIGN

Explanatory sequential mixed methods study comprising quantitative survey (phase 1), followed by interviews and focus group discussions (phase 2).

SETTING

Three acute hospitals of a large English National Health Service organisation.

PARTICIPANTS

25 of 89 foundation year 1 and 2 doctors completed the phase 1 survey; 5 participated in semi-structured interviews and 7 in a focus group in phase 2.

RESULTS

Foundation doctors in this mixed methods study reported that current feedback provision on EP errors was lacking or informal, and that existing EP training and resources were underused. They believed feedback about prescribing errors to be important and were keen to receive real-time, individualised EP feedback data. Feedback needed to be in manageable amounts, motivational and clearly signposting how to learn or improve. Participants wanted feedback and better training on the EP system to prevent repeating errors. In addition to individualised EP error data, they were positive about learning from general prescribing errors and aggregated EP data. However, there was a lack of consensus about how best to learn from statistical data. Potential limitations identified by participants included concern about how the data would be collected and whether it would be truly reflective of their performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Junior doctors would value feedback on their prescribing, and are keen to learn from EP errors, develop their clinical prescribing skills and use the EP interface effectively. We identified preferences for EP technology to enable provision of real-time data in combination with feedback to support learning and potentially reduce prescribing errors.

Evaluating the impact of a pharmacist-led prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing errors in a hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors are prevalent in hospital settings with provision of feedback recommended to support prescribing of doctors. Feedback on prescribing has been described as feasible and valued but limited by doctors, with pharmacists described as credible facilitators of prescribing feedback. Evidence supporting prescribing feedback has been limited to date. A formalised programme of pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback was designed and implemented to support prescribers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a prescribing feedback intervention on prescribing error rates and frequency of prescribing error severity and type.

METHOD

Prospective prescribing audits were undertaken across sixteen hospital wards in a UK teaching hospital over a five day period with 36 prescribers in the intervention group and 41 in the control group. The intervention group received pharmacist-led, individualised constructive feedback on their prescribing, whilst the control group continued with existing practice. Prescribing was re-audited after three months. Prescribing errors were classified by type and severity and data were analysed using relevant statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 5191 prescribed medications were audited at baseline and 5122 post-intervention. There was a mean prescribing error rate of 25.0% (SD 16.8, 95% CI 19.3 to 30.7) at baseline and 6.7% (SD 9.0, 95% CI 3.7 to 9.8) post-intervention for the intervention group, and 19.7% (SD 14.5, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.3) at baseline and 25.1% (SD 17.0, 95% CI 19.8 to 30.6) post-intervention for the control group with a significant overall change in prescribing error rates between groups of 23.7% (SD 3.5, 95% CI, -30.6 to -16.8), t(75) = -6.9, p < 0.05. The frequency of each error type and severity rating was reduced in the intervention group, whilst the error frequency of some error types and severity increased in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led prescribing feedback has the potential to reduce prescribing errors and improve prescribing outcomes and patient safety.

The impact of a prescription review and prescriber feedback system on prescribing practices in primary care clinics: a cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured prescription review and prescriber feedback program in reducing prescribing errors in government primary care clinics within an administrative region in Malaysia.

METHODS

This was a three group, pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. In phase 1, we randomised 51 clinics to a full intervention group (prescription review and league tables plus authorised feedback letter), a partial intervention group (prescription review and league tables), and a control group (prescription review only). Prescribers in these clinics were the target of our intervention. Prescription reviews were performed by pharmacists; 20 handwritten prescriptions per prescriber were consecutively screened on a random day each month, and errors identified were recorded in a standardised data collection form. Prescribing performance feedback was conducted at the completion of each prescription review cycle. League tables benchmark prescribing errors across clinics and individual prescribers, while the authorised feedback letter detailed prescribing performance based on a rating scale. In phase 2, all clinics received the full intervention. Pharmacists were trained on data collection, and all data were audited by researchers as an implementation fidelity strategy. The primary outcome, percentage of prescriptions with at least one error, was displayed in p-charts to enable group comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 32,200 prescriptions were reviewed. In the full intervention group, error reduction occurred gradually and was sustained throughout the 8-month study period. The process mean error rate of 40.7% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 1 reduced to 28.4% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 2. In the partial intervention group, error reduction was not well sustained and showed a seasonal pattern with larger process variability. The phase 1 error rate averaging 57.9% (95% CI 56.5, 59.3%) reduced to 44.8% (95% CI 43.3, 46.4%) in phase 2. There was no evidence of improvement in the control group, with phase 1 and phase 2 error rates averaging 41.1% (95% CI 39.6, 42.6%) and 39.3% (95% CI 37.8, 40.9%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of prescribing errors in primary care settings is high, and routine prescriber feedback comprising league tables and a feedback letter can effectively reduce prescribing errors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Medical Research Register: NMRR-12-108-11,289 (5th March 2012).

Effect of providing feedback and prescribing education on prescription writing: An intervention study

Background/Objective:

Accurate medication prescribing important to avoid errors and ensure best possible outcomes. This is a report of assessment of the impact of providing feedback and educational intervention on prescribing error types and rates in routine practice.

Methods:

Doctors’ prescriptions from selected wards in two tertiary hospitals in central Nigeria were prospectively reviewed for a 6-month period and assessed for errors; grouped into six categories. Intervention was by providing feedback and educational outreach on the specialty/departmental level at one hospital while the other acted as the control. Chi-squared statistics was used to compare prescribing characteristics pre- and post-intervention.

Results:

At baseline, error rate was higher at the control site. At the intervention site, statistically significant reductions were obtained for errors involving omission of route of administration (P < 0.001), under dose (P = 0.012), dose adjustment in renal impairment (P = 0.019), ambiguous orders (P < 0.001) and drug/drug interaction (P < 0.001) post intervention though there was no change in mean error rate post intervention (P = 0.984). Though House Officers and Registrars wrote most prescriptions, highest reduction in prescribing error rates post intervention was by the registrars (0.93% to 0.29%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Writing prescriptions that lacked essential details was common. Intervention resulted in modest changes. Routinely providing feedback and continuing prescriber education will likely sustain error reduction.

Improving feedback on junior doctors' prescribing errors: mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement project

Background

Prescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation.

Aim

To reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors.

Interventions

We developed three linked interventions using plan–do–study–act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error.

Implementation and evaluation

Interventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013.

Results

The percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site.

Conclusion

Findings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

Formalized prescribing error feedback from hospital pharmacists: doctors' attitudes and opinions

Doctors have reported a lack of awareness of their prescribing errors with lack of feedback considered a system failure. This article summarizes the views of hospital doctors about receiving formal prescribing error feedback from ward-based pharmacists.

Development and evaluation of a pocket card to support prescribing by junior doctors in an English hospital

Background Junior doctors do most inpatient prescribing, with a relatively high error rate, and locally had reported finding prescribing very stressful. Objective To develop an intervention to improve Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctors’ experience of prescribing, and evaluate their satisfaction with the intervention and perceptions of its impact. Methods Based on findings of a focus group and questionnaire, we developed a pocket Dose Reference Card (“Dr-Card”) for use at the point of prescribing. This summarised common drugs and dosing schedules and was distributed to all new FY1 doctors in a London teaching trust. A post-intervention questionnaire explored satisfaction and perceived impact. Results Focus group participants (n = 12) described feeling anxious and time pressured when prescribing; a quick reference resource for commonly prescribed drug doses was suggested. Responses to the exploratory questionnaire reinforced these findings. Following Dr-Card distribution, the post-intervention questionnaire revealed that 29/38 (76 %) doctors were still using it 2 months after distribution and 38/38 (100 %) would recommend ongoing production. Conclusions FY1 doctors reported feeling stressed and time pressured when prescribing; this was perceived to contribute to error. A pocket card presenting common drugs and doses was well-received, perceived to be useful, and recommended for on-going use.

What are incident reports telling us? A comparative study at two Australian hospitals of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system

Objectives

To (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff.

Design

Audit of 3291patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as ‘clinically important’.

Setting

Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia.

Main Outcome Measures

Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports.

Results

A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6–1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0–253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4–22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4–28.4%) contained ≥1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit.

Conclusions

Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.

Detection of medication-related problems in hospital practice: a review

This review examines the effectiveness of detection methods in terms of their ability to identify and accurately determine medication-related problems in hospitals. A search was conducted of databases from inception to June 2012. The following keywords were used in combination: medication error or adverse drug event or adverse drug reaction, comparison, detection, hospital and method. Seven detection methods were considered: chart review, claims data review, computer monitoring, direct care observation, interviews, prospective data collection and incident reporting. Forty relevant studies were located. Detection methods that were better able to identify medication-related problems compared with other methods tested in the same study included chart review, computer monitoring, direct care observation and prospective data collection. However, only small numbers of studies were involved in comparisons with direct care observation (n = 5) and prospective data collection (n = 6). There was little focus on detecting medication-related problems during various stages of the medication process, and comparisons associated with the seriousness of medication-related problems were examined in 19 studies. Only 17 studies involved appropriate comparisons with a gold standard, which provided details about sensitivities and specificities. In view of the relatively low identification of medication-related problems with incident reporting, use of this method in tracking trends over time should be met with some scepticism. Greater attention should be placed on combining methods, such as chart review and computer monitoring in examining trends. More research is needed on the use of claims data, direct care observation, interviews and prospective data collection as detection methods.

Effects of a computerized feedback intervention on safety performance by junior doctors: results from a randomized mixed method study

Background

The behaviour of doctors and their responses to warnings can inform the effective design of Clinical Decision Support Systems. We used data from a University hospital electronic prescribing and laboratory reporting system with hierarchical warnings and alerts to explore junior doctors’ behaviour. The objective of this trial was to establish whether a Junior Doctor Dashboard providing feedback on prescription warning information and laboratory alerting acceptance rates was effective in changing junior doctors’ behaviour.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was employed which included a parallel group randomised controlled trial, and individual and focus group interviews. Junior doctors below the specialty trainee level 3 grade were recruited and randomised to two groups. Every doctor (N = 42) in the intervention group was e-mailed a link to a personal dashboard every week for 4 months. Nineteen participated in interviews. The 44 control doctors did not receive any automated feedback. The outcome measures were the difference in responses to prescribing warnings (of two severities) and laboratory alerting (of two severities) between the months before and the months during the intervention, analysed as the difference in performance between the intervention and the control groups.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the rates of generating prescription warnings, or in the acceptance of laboratory alarms. However, responses to laboratory alerts differed between the pre-intervention and intervention periods. For the doctors of Foundation Year 1 grade, this improvement was significantly (p = 0.002) greater in the group with access to the dashboard (53.6% ignored pre-intervention compared to 29.2% post intervention) than in the control group (47.9% ignored pre-intervention compared to 47.0% post intervention). Qualitative interview data indicated that while junior doctors were positive about the electronic prescribing functions, they were discriminating in the way they responded to other alerts and warnings given that from their perspective these were not always immediately clinically relevant or within the scope of their responsibility.

Conclusions

We have only been able to provide weak evidence that a clinical dashboard providing individualized feedback data has the potential to improve safety behaviour and only in one of several domains. The construction of metrics used in clinical dashboards must take account of actual work processes.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN72253051

Feedback on prescribing errors to junior doctors: exploring views, problems and preferred methods

BACKGROUND

Prescribing errors are common in hospital inpatients. However, the literature suggests that doctors are often unaware of their errors as they are not always informed of them. It has been suggested that providing more feedback to prescribers may reduce subsequent error rates. Only few studies have investigated the views of prescribers towards receiving such feedback, or the views of hospital pharmacists as potential feedback providers.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to explore the views of junior doctors and hospital pharmacists regarding feedback on individual doctors' prescribing errors. Objectives were to determine how feedback was currently provided and any associated problems, to explore views on other approaches to feedback, and to make recommendations for designing suitable feedback systems.

SETTING

A large London NHS hospital trust.

METHODS

To explore views on current and possible feedback mechanisms, self-administered questionnaires were given to all junior doctors and pharmacists, combining both 5-point Likert scale statements and open-ended questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement scores for statements regarding perceived prescribing error rates, opinions on feedback, barriers to feedback, and preferences for future practice.

RESULTS

Response rates were 49% (37/75) for junior doctors and 57% (57/100) for pharmacists. In general, doctors did not feel threatened by feedback on their prescribing errors. They felt that feedback currently provided was constructive but often irregular and insufficient. Most pharmacists provided feedback in various ways; however some did not or were inconsistent. They were willing to provide more feedback, but did not feel it was always effective or feasible due to barriers such as communication problems and time constraints. Both professional groups preferred individual feedback with additional regular generic feedback on common or serious errors.

CONCLUSION

Feedback on prescribing errors was valued and acceptable to both professional groups. From the results, several suggested methods of providing feedback on prescribing errors emerged. Addressing barriers such as the identification of individual prescribers would facilitate feedback in practice. Research investigating whether or not feedback reduces the subsequent error rate is now needed.

Personalised performance feedback reduces narcotic prescription errors in a NICU

Objective

Neonates are at high risk for significant morbidity and mortality from medication prescribing errors. Despite general awareness of these risks, mistakes continue to happen. Alerts in computerised physician order entry intended to help prescribers avoid errors have not been effective enough. This improvement project delivered feedback of prescribing errors to prescribers in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and measured the impact on medication error frequency.

Methods

A front-line multidisciplinary team doing multiple Plan Do Study Act cycles developed a system to communicate prescribing errors directly to providers every 2 weeks in the NICU. The primary outcome measure was number of days between medication prescribing errors with particular focus on antibiotic and narcotic errors.

Results

A T-control chart showed that the number of days between narcotic prescribing errors rose from 3.94 to 22.63 days after the intervention, an 83% improvement. No effect in the number of days between antibiotic prescribing errors during the same period was found.

Conclusions

An effective system to communicate mistakes can reduce some types of prescribing errors.

Including pharmacists on consultant-led ward rounds: a prospective non-randomised controlled trial

This study aimed to compare interventions made by pharmacists attending consultant-led ward rounds in addition to providing a ward pharmacy service, with those made by pharmacists providing a word pharmacy service alone. A prospective non-randomised controlled study on five inpatient medical wards was carried out at two teaching hospitals. A mean of 1.73 physician-accepted interventions were made per patient for the study group, compared to 0.89 for the control (Mann Whitney U, p < 0.001) with no difference between groups in the nature or clinical importance of the interventions. One physician-accepted intervention was made every eight minutes during the consultant-led ward rounds, compared to one every 63 minutes during a ward pharmacist visit. Pharmacists attending consultant-led ward rounds in addition to undertaking a ward pharmacist visit make significantly more interventions per patient than those made by pharmacists undertaking a ward pharmacist visit alone, rectifying prescribing errors and optimising treatment.

Pharmacists' interventions in prescribing errors at hospital discharge: an observational study in the context of an electronic prescribing system in a UK teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have an essential role in improving drug usage and preventing prescribing errors (PEs). PEs at the interface of care are common, sometimes leading to adverse drug events (ADEs). This was the first study to investigate, using a computerized search method, the number, types, severity, pharmacists' impact on PEs and predictors of PEs in the context of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) at hospital discharge.

METHOD

This was a retrospective, observational, 4-week study, carried out in 2008 in the Medical and Elderly Care wards of a 904-bed teaching hospital in the northwest of England, operating an e-prescribing system at discharge. Details were obtained, using a systematic computerized search of the system, of medication orders either entered by doctors and discontinued by pharmacists or entered by pharmacists. Meetings were conducted within 5 days of data extraction with pharmacists doing their routine clinical work, who categorized the occurrence, type and severity of their interventions using a scale. An independent senior pharmacist retrospectively rated the severity and potential impact, and subjectively judged, based on experience, whether any error was a computer-related error (CRE). Discrepancies were resolved by multidisciplinary discussion. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences was used for descriptive data analysis. For the PE predictors, a multivariate logistic regression was performed using STATA 7. Nine predictors were selected a priori from available prescribers', patients' and drug data.

RESULTS

There were 7920 medication orders entered for 1038 patients (doctors entered 7712 orders; pharmacists entered 208 omitted orders). There were 675 (8.5% of 7920) interventions by pharmacists; 11 were not associated with PEs. Incidences of erroneous orders and patients with error were 8.0% (95% CI 7.4, 8.5 [n = 630/7920]) and 20.4% (95% CI 18.1, 22.9 [n = 212/1038]), respectively. The PE incidence was 8.4% (95% CI 7.8, 9.0 [n = 664/7920]). The top three medications associated with PEs were paracetamol (acetaminophen; 30 [4.8%]), salbutamol (albuterol; 28 [4.4%]) and omeprazole (25 [4.0%]). Pharmacists intercepted 524 (83.2%) erroneous orders without referring to doctors, and 70% of erroneous orders within 24 hours. Omission (31.0%), drug selection (29.4%) and dosage regimen (18.1%) error types accounted for >75% of PEs. There were 18 (2.9%) serious, 481 (76.3%) significant and 131 (20.8%) minor erroneous orders. Most erroneous orders (469 [74.4%]) were rated as of significant severity and significant impact of pharmacists on PEs. CREs (n = 279) accounted for 44.3% of erroneous orders. There was a significant difference in severity between CREs and non-CREs (χ2 = 38.88; df = 4; p < 0.001), with CREs being less severe than non-CREs. Drugs with multiple oral formulations (odds ratio [OR] 2.1; 95% CI 1.25, 3.37; p = 0.004) and prescribing by junior doctors (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.08, 5.99; p = 0.03) were significant predictors of PEs.

CONCLUSIONS

PEs commonly occur at hospital discharge, even with the use of an e-prescribing system. User and computer factors both appeared to contribute to the high error rate. The e-prescribing system facilitated the systematic extraction of data to investigate PEs in hospital practice. Pharmacists play an important role in rapidly documenting and preventing PEs before they reach and possibly harm patients. Pharmacists should understand CREs, so they complement, rather than duplicate, the e-prescribing system's strengths.

The causes of and factors associated with prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review

Prescribing errors are common, they result in adverse events and harm to patients and it is unclear how best to prevent them because recommendations are more often based on surmized rather than empirically collected data. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all informative published evidence concerning the causes of and factors associated with prescribing errors in specialist and non-specialist hospitals, collate it, analyse it qualitatively and synthesize conclusions from it. Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1985-July 2008. The reference lists of all informative studies were searched for additional citations. To be included, a study had to be of handwritten prescriptions for adult or child inpatients that reported empirically collected data on the causes of or factors associated with errors. Publications in languages other than English and studies that evaluated errors for only one disease, one route of administration or one type of prescribing error were excluded. Seventeen papers reporting 16 studies, selected from 1268 papers identified by the search, were included in the review. Studies from the US and the UK in university-affiliated hospitals predominated (10/16 [62%]). The definition of a prescribing error varied widely and the included studies were highly heterogeneous. Causes were grouped according to Reason's model of accident causation into active failures, error-provoking conditions and latent conditions. The active failure most frequently cited was a mistake due to inadequate knowledge of the drug or the patient. Skills-based slips and memory lapses were also common. Where error-provoking conditions were reported, there was at least one per error. These included lack of training or experience, fatigue, stress, high workload for the prescriber and inadequate communication between healthcare professionals. Latent conditions included reluctance to question senior colleagues and inadequate provision of training. Prescribing errors are often multifactorial, with several active failures and error-provoking conditions often acting together to cause them. In the face of such complexity, solutions addressing a single cause, such as lack of knowledge, are likely to have only limited benefit. Further rigorous study, seeking potential ways of reducing error, needs to be conducted. Multifactorial interventions across many parts of the system are likely to be required.

Quality of medication use in primary care--mapping the problem, working to a solution: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The UK, USA and the World Health Organization have identified improved patient safety in healthcare as a priority. Medication error has been identified as one of the most frequent forms of medical error and is associated with significant medical harm. Errors are the result of the systems that produce them. In industrial settings, a range of systematic techniques have been designed to reduce error and waste. The first stage of these processes is to map out the whole system and its reliability at each stage. However, to date, studies of medication error and solutions have concentrated on individual parts of the whole system. In this paper we wished to conduct a systematic review of the literature, in order to map out the medication system with its associated errors and failures in quality, to assess the strength of the evidence and to use approaches from quality management to identify ways in which the system could be made safer.

METHODS

We mapped out the medicines management system in primary care in the UK. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to refine our map of the system and to establish the quality of the research and reliability of the system.

RESULTS

The map demonstrated that the proportion of errors in the management system for medicines in primary care is very high. Several stages of the process had error rates of 50% or more: repeat prescribing reviews, interface prescribing and communication and patient adherence. When including the efficacy of the medicine in the system, the available evidence suggested that only between 4% and 21% of patients achieved the optimum benefit from their medication. Whilst there were some limitations in the evidence base, including the error rate measurement and the sampling strategies employed, there was sufficient information to indicate the ways in which the system could be improved, using management approaches. The first step to improving the overall quality would be routine monitoring of adherence, clinical effectiveness and hospital admissions.

CONCLUSION

By adopting the whole system approach from a management perspective we have found where failures in quality occur in medication use in primary care in the UK, and where weaknesses occur in the associated evidence base. Quality management approaches have allowed us to develop a coherent change and research agenda in order to tackle these, so far, fairly intractable problems.

Interns' knowledge of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics after undergraduate and on-going internship training in Nigeria: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

A sound knowledge of pathophysiology of a disease and clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) of a drug is required for safe and rational prescribing. The aim of this study was therefore to assess how adequately the undergraduate CPT teaching had prepared interns in Nigeria for safe and rational prescribing and retrospectively, to know how they wanted the undergraduate curriculum to be modified so as to improve appropriate prescribing. The effect of internship training on the prescribing ability of the interns was also sought.

METHODS

A total of 100 interns were randomly selected from the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), Ikeja; Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Idiaraba; General Hospital Lagos (GHL); the EKO Hospital, Ikeja; and Havana Specialist Hospital, Surulere. A structured questionnaire was the instrument of study. The questionnaire sought information about the demographics of the interns, their undergraduate CPT teaching, experience of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug interactions since starting work, confidence in drug usage and, in retrospect; any perceived deficiencies in their undergraduate CPT teaching.

RESULTS

The response rate was 81%. All the respondents graduated from universities in Nigeria. The ability of the interns to prescribe rationally (66, 81.4%) and safely (47, 58%) was provided by undergraduate CPT teaching. Forty two (51.8%) respondents had problems with prescription writing. The interns would likely prescribe antibiotics (71, 87.6%), nonsteroidal analgesics (66, 81.4%), diuretics (55, 67.9%), sedatives (52, 62.9%), and insulin and oral hypoglycaemics (43, 53%) with confidence and unsupervised. The higher the numbers of clinical rotations done, the more confident were the respondents to prescribe unsupervised (chi2 = 19.98, P < 0.001). Similarly, respondents who had rotated through the four major clinical rotations and at least a special posting (chi2 = 11.57, P < 0.001) or four major clinical rotations only (chi2 = 11.25, P < 0.001) were significantly more confident to prescribe drugs unsupervised.

CONCLUSION

Undergraduate CPT teaching in Nigeria appears to be deficient. Principles of rational prescribing, drug dose calculation in children and pharmacovigilance should be the focus of undergraduate CPT teaching and should be taught both theoretically and practically. Medical students and interns should be periodically assessed on prescribing knowledge and skills during their training as a means of minimizing prescribing errors.

Survey of medication documentation at hospital discharge: implications for patient safety and continuity of care

BACKGROUND

Medication discrepancies at the time of hospital discharge are common and can result in error, patient/carer inconvenience or patient harm. Providing accurate medication information to the next care provider is necessary to prevent adverse events.

AIMS

To investigate the quality and consistency of medication details generated for such transfer from an Irish teaching hospital.

METHODS

This was an observational study of 139 cardiology patients admitted over a 3 month period during which a pharmacist prospectively recorded details of medication inconsistencies.

RESULTS

A discrepancy in medication documentation at discharge occurred in 10.8% of medication orders, affecting 65.5% of patients. While patient harm was assessed, it was only felt necessary to contact three (2%) patients. The most common inconsistency was drug omission (20.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Inaccuracy of medication information at hospital discharge is common and compromises quality of care.