scholarly journals P37 A model for reducing paediatric prescribing errors in secondary care

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. e26.1-e26
Author(s):  
Kate Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Inappropriate Medication ◽  
List Type ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Senior Nurse ◽  
Ward Rounds ◽  
Paediatric Prescribing

BackgroundA prescribing error is a preventable error that may lead to inappropriate medication use and patient harm(1). Prescribing errors are particularly important in paediatrics where dose calculations are complicated and small errors can result in significant morbidity and mortality.1 In 2017 pharmacy data showed that paediatric prescribing errors were an issue at our Hospital regarding the severity and high numbers of errors, especially for antibiotics and analgesia.ObjectivesTo achieve a zero prescribing error rate for paediatric within the hospital.MethodForm the Paediatric Medication Errors Prevention (PMEP) group consisting of the Paediatric Consultant, Paediatric Pharmacist, Children’s Assessment Unit Sister and Practice Education Senior Nurse.Paediatric Pharmacist to record and feedback all paediatric prescribing errors weekly at Doctors’ handover.Paediatric Pharmacist/Nurses to DATIX report all significant medication prescribing errorsPaediatric Pharmacist to produce and communicate monthly pharmacy prescribing newsletter.Paediatric Pharmacist to produce quick reference charts for the drugs with the most common prescribing errors e.g. antibiotics and analgesiaPaediatric Doctors to request a second check from another Doctor or Ward Sister when prescribing any medication on the drug chart of take home prescription.Paediatric Pharmacist to target Doctors’ induction to improve prescribing and implement a prescribing test.Doctors to complete reflections for errors with their educationsal supervisors.This study did not require ethics approval.ResultsFollowing implementation of the above strategies, there was a 33% reduction in the number of prescribing errors recorded by the Paediatric Pharmacist daily intervention log from 2017/2018 to 2018/2019. There were 163 prescribing errors for 2017/2018 compared to 110 for 2018/2019.ConclusionThe formation of the PMEP group and implementation of strategies to reduce paediatric prescribing errors has positively impacted on reducing the error rate at the hospital. It has also raised awareness of the necessity to report all errors and actively find ways to prevent these from re-occurring. Further work is required to reduce these errors to zero including targeting non paediatric teams prescribing on paediatrics and implementing Pharmacists prescribing on consultant ward rounds. Future work would also include replicating this model in other specialities e.g. neonatal intensive care to achieve the same success rate in reducing medication errors.ReferenceDavis T. Paediatric prescribing errors. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96:489–91. Accessed via http://adc.bmj.com on 2/4/19.

P23 Reducing inpatient prescribing errors in paediatric cystic fibrosis patients: a multi-disciplinary quality improvement project

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. e1.28-e1
Author(s):  
Bayliss Emily ◽  
Vittery Emma ◽  
Thomas Matthew
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
List Type ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Prescribing Error

AimAssess the incidence, type and severity of prescribing errorsAssess the use and efficacy of a pre–existing prescribing aidReduce the number and severity profile of prescribing errors through increased use of the prescribing aid.MethodTwenty cystic fibrosis (CF) patients, admitted consecutively to a tertiary paediatric centre, were included in the study. Use of the pre-existing CF prescribing aid and prescribing errors were detected prospectively by daily pharmacist review of electronic drug charts. A doctor and a pharmacist then retrospectively assigned a severity score (A-I), using a standardised tool.1 Ten patients were evaluated initially. Following this, paediatric CF patients were tagged on the electronic prescribing system, creating a pop-up alert to direct prescribers to the CF prescribing aid when those patients’ electronic medicine records were opened.ResultsTen patients (163 medication orders) were evaluated in phase I pre-intervention, and ten patients (157 medication orders) were evaluated in phase II post-intervention.In total 127 prescribing errors were recorded. The most common types of prescribing error were: failing to prescribe a patient’s regular medicine (27%); prescribing the wrong formulation (19%); prescribing the wrong dose (14%).No errors, in either phase of the study, caused patient harm. The highest severity score in this study was awarded to prescribing errors that reached the patient, did not cause harm but required intervention to preclude harm or required extra monitoring (category D).1Throughout both phases, 32% of error containing orders were related to medicines that were not included in the CF prescribing aid, the error rate was comparable in both phases (30%; 35%). These medicines were non-CF specific drugs therefore not appropriate to be included in the prescribing aid. These medication orders were excluded from further pre- and post- intervention analysis.In the pre-intervention group, 100 CF medication orders were prescribed. The prescribing aid was used in 42% of orders. 43% of medication orders had at least one prescribing error. 27% of errors were of severity category D.In the post-intervention group, 104 CF medication orders were prescribed. The prescribing aid was used in 70% of orders. 27% of medication orders had at least one prescribing error. 15% of errors were of severity category D.ConclusionIntroducing a paediatric CF alert system successfully increased prescriber utilisation of the CF prescribing aid, with subsequent reduction in error rate and severity of CF specific medicines. We are confident that this improvement reflects our intervention, although without in-depth statistical analysis we cannot attribute causality. However, errors still occurred despite the use of the prescribing aid and errors occurred in non-CF specific medicines. A continuous quality improvement approach is being adopted to explore alternative causes for error and further interventions that can be made, with focus on dovetailing inpatient and outpatient prescribing and medication recording. Further study is required in this complex high-risk patient group where polypharmacy is unavoidable.ReferenceNational Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. NCC MERP index for categorising medication errors2001. http://www.nccmerp.org/types-medication-errors [Accessed: 30/07/2017].

SP3 The effect of electronic prescribing and medicines administration systems (epmass) on paediatric medication errors

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. e1.23-e1
Author(s):  
Aragon Octavio ◽  
Fayyaz Goher ◽  
Gill Andrea ◽  
Morecroft Charles
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Electronic Prescribing ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Common Error ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Paediatric Prescribing

BackgroundThe complex nature of paediatric prescribing makes this population more vulnerable to medication errors.1Electronic Prescribing and Medicines Administration Systems (EPMASs) have been suggested to improve paediatric medication safety by reducing prescribing errors.AimTo identify and compare the number and nature of paediatric medication errors pre and post introduction of an EPMAS at a tertiary paediatric hospital.MethodologyPharmacists collected data monthly on the number of new items prescribed and the number of errors (if any) detected in these prescriptions following methodology from the EQUIP study.2 The EPMAS Meditechv6 was introduced in June 2015. Data analysed included forms from 1st-January-2015 to 30th-June-2015 (period 1: pre-EPMAS) and 1st-January-2016 to 30th-June-2016 (period 2: post-EPMAS). The analysis aimed to investigate the rate, type and severity of errors as well as the prescriber grade, prescribing stage and drug class associated with each. Descriptive statistical methods were used to analyse the frequency and nature of errors pre and post implementation of Meditech. Statistical significance was tested using a contingency Chi-squared (χ2) test for the difference in error rates across both periods and a Mann-Whitney test for the difference between the severities of errors across both periodsResultsAn increase of 6.4% in error rate was detected post-Meditech introduction with 67 errors in 1706 items (3.9%) during period 1 and 151 errors in 1459 items (10.3%) during period 2 (p<0.001, χ2 test). FY2 doctors and ‘admission stage’ were associated with the highest error rates across both periods. Minor severity errors were the most common in both periods, with 55.2% in period 1% and 66.2% in period 2. No statistical difference was detected (p=0.403) in the severity of errors reported although the proportion of significant and serious errors decreased from 38.8% to 27.8% and 6.0% to 0.7% respectively. No errors were classed to be potentially lethal in period 1, however there was one such incident in period 2. Underdosing was the most common error type in period 1 (22.4%), falling to 4.0% in period 2. Omission on admission was the most common error type in period 2, with an error rate of 37.7% vs 20.9% in period 1. Antibacterials and analgesics were the most common classes of drugs involved in errors in both periods, although a wider range of drug classes were involved in errors post Meditech introductionConclusionA significant increase of 6.4% in error rate was found post implementation of Meditech highlighting the concept of EPMAS-facilitated errors. The positive effect of EPMASs is also apparent as the incidence of significant and serious errors decreased in period 2, although this difference was not statistically significant. Reaching definitive conclusions is difficult due to the lack of available research into the effects of EPMASs on paediatric prescribing and due to methodological limitations. However, it can be suggested that introducing functions such as comprehensive decision support and dose calculators may overcome the shortcomings of the current system3 and allow for the true benefits of EPMASs in improving paediatric medication safety to be demonstrated.ReferencesNational Patient Safety Agency. Review of patient safety for children and young people 2009. England: National Reporting and Learning Services. http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/?entryid45=5986 [Accessed: 29th October 2016].Dornan T, et al. An in-depth investigation into causes of prescribing errors by foundation trainees in relation to their medical education: EQUIP study. Final Report to the General Medical Council 2009. http://www.gmcuk.org/FINAL_Report_prevalence_and_causes_of_prescribing_errors.pdf_28935150.pdf [Accessed: 9th November 2016].Johnson KB, Lehmann CU. Electronic prescribing in paediatrics: Toward safer and more effective medication management. Paediatrics 2013;131(4):e1350–e1356. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0193

scholarly journals P54 Mapping the prevalence and nature of drug related problems among hospitalised children in the United Kingdom: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. e35.1-e35
Author(s):  
Adam Sutherland ◽  
Denham Phipps ◽  
Steve Tomlin ◽  
Darren Ashcroft
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
List Type ◽  
Drug Related Problems ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
The Uk

AimsProblems with medication account for 10–20% of all adverse healthcare events in the NHS, costing between £200–400 million per year.1 Children are more likely to experience medication related harm.2 International reviews of the prevalence of drug-related problems are over ten years old.3 There is a need for a focussed and critical review of the prevalence and nature of drug-related problems in hospitalised children in the UK to support the development and targeting of interventions to improve medication safety.4MethodsNine electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, IPA, Scopus, HMIC, BNI, The Cochrane library and clinical trial databases) were searched from January 1999 to September 2018. Studies were included if they were based in the UK, reported on the frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), adverse drug events (ADEs) or medication errors (MEs) affecting hospitalised children, and quality appraisal of the studies was conducted.Results26 studies were included; none of which specifically reported on the prevalence of ADEs. Three ADR studies reported a median prevalence of 28.3% of patients (IQR 13); >70% of reactions warranted withdrawal of medication. Sixteen studies reported on prescribing errors and the median prescribing error rate in all paediatric contexts was 10.7% of prescriptions (IQR 6) Seven studies explored prescribing errors in PICU and the prevalence was twice that in non-ICU areas (11.1% prescriptions; IQR 2.9 versus 6.5% prescriptions; IQR 4.3). The median rate of dose prescribing errors was 11.1% doses prescribed (IQR 10.6). Four studies reported administration errors of which three used consistent methods. Across these three studies, a median prevalence of 12.4% of administrations (IQR 7.3) was found. Administration technique errors represented 53% of these errors (IQR 14.7). Errors detected during medicines reconciliation at hospital admission affected 43% of patients, 33% (IQR 13) of prescribed medication with 70.3% (IQR 14) classified as potentially harmful. Medication errors detected during reconciliation on discharge from hospital affected 33% of patients and 19.7% of medicines, with 22% considered potentially harmful. No studies examined the prevalence of monitoring or dispensing errors.ConclusionsChildren are commonly affected by drug-related problems throughout their hospital journey. Given the high prevalence and risk of patient harm, there is an urgent need for outcome-focussed research on preventable ADEs in paediatric hospital settings in the UK. A deeper understanding of medication processes for children in hospital from a systems and theoretical perspective will also support the development and tragetting of effective interventions to improve patient safety.ReferencesChief Medical Officer. An Organisation With a Memory. London; 2000.Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C, et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 2001;285:2114–2120.Ghaleb MA, Barber N, Franklin BD, Yeung VWS, Khaki ZF, Wong ICK. Systematic review of medication errors in pediatric patients. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:1766–1776.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical Care Training Increases the Ability Pharmacists to Reduce the Incidence of Medication Error

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
Akrom Akrom ◽  
Budiyono Budiyono ◽  
Woro Supadmi
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Care ◽  
Rural Area ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Outpatient Unit ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Care Training ◽  
Dispensing Error

The objective of the study was to know the potential incidence of medication errors before and after the training of pharmaceutical care in the Outpatient Pharmacy Unit of general privat hospital in rural area of Yogyakarta. The observational studi used to describe the potential medication errors in prescribing phase and dispensing phase and to determine its completion. This research was conducted prior to the training of pharmaceutical care that is in May and after the training of pharmaceutical care that was in June 2014 at the Outpatient Unit of general privat hospital in rural area Yogyakarta. The data was taken from a book review of prescriptions in outpatient units for the month. The results showed that the number of potential medication errors before the training of pharmaceutical care in prescribing phase (prescribing errors) found 17 cases or 0.21% and the dispensing phase (dispensing error) as many as 36 cases or 0.45%. While the potential for medication errors after the training phase of pharmaceutical care in prescribing phase (prescribing error) is found as many as 115 cases or 1.45% and the dispensing phase (dispensing error) is found as many as 165 cases or 2.10%.

Medication errors in a neonatal intensive care unit. Influence of observation on the error rate

2008 ◽  
Vol 97 (11) ◽  
pp. 1591-1594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ainara Campino ◽  
Maria Cruz Lopez-Herrera ◽  
Ion Lopez-de-Heredia ◽  
Adolf Valls-i-Soler
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care

P30 The effects of introducing electronic prescribing for paediatric chemotherapy using aria on prescribing error rates at a primary treatment centre

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. e2.33-e2
Author(s):  
Peter Cook ◽  
Andy Fox
Keyword(s):  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukaemia ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Electronic Prescribing ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Before And After

IntroductionPrescribing of medication in children is a very complex process that involves an understanding of paediatric physiology, disease states, medication used and pharmacokinetics as well as patient specific details, their co-morbidities and their clinical condition. The most common medication errors have been identified as dosing, route of administration, and frequency of administration. Computerised provider order entry has been shown to reduce the number of prescribing errors related to chemotherapy as well as the likelihood of dose and calculation errors in paediatric chemotherapy prescribing. Locally, paediatric chemotherapy is prescribed on pre-printed paper prescriptions. Adaptation and implementation of ARIA electronic prescribing (EP) system for use in paediatric chemotherapy was undertaken by a Specialist Paediatric Oncology Pharmacist and was rolled out for use in January 2016 for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.MethodThe United Kingdom National Randomised Trial for Children and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia and Lymphoma 2011 (UKALL, 2011) was developed for use on EP, with prescribing of all other chemotherapy remaining on paper. The number and type of prescribing errors were collected during a pre-implementation phase from January 2015 to June 2015. After the introduction of EP and following a 2 month acclimatisation period, a second period of data collection took place between March 2016 and July 2016. Overall prescribing error rates and the frequency of each error type were calculated both before and after implementation.ResultsBefore the introduction of EP for paediatric chemotherapy, the overall error rate was 18.4% with a total of 16 different errors seen. Post implementation, overall error rate increased to 25.7% (p<0.001) with a total of 10 different errors seen. After introduction of EP, prescribing error rates on paper were 30.6% and on EP were 7.0% (p<0.001). Only 5 different error types were seen with electronic prescribing. The most commonly seen errors in prescribing with paper, both before and after were almost eliminated with the introduction of EP.ConclusionThe introduction of EP has resulted in a significant reduction in prescribing error rates compared to paper based prescribing for paediatric chemotherapy. Overall the prescribing error rate increased after the introduction of EP but this was related to an increased rate on the paper prescriptions. One possible reason for this was the use of dual systems for prescribing. In addition there was unforeseen relocation and building work within the paediatric cancer unit, which affected prescribing time allocation. There were also several staff shortages within the prescribing team after implementation and this resulted in an increased workload on the remaining chemotherapy prescribers. All these issues could have attributed to the increase in error rates. The most common errors seen with chemotherapy prescribing have been reduced with EP as protocols have been developed with a focus on prescribing safety. Further work is needed as more prescribing takes place on EP to assess the full impact it has on paediatric chemotherapy error rates.

scholarly journals A study on prescribing errors in in-patients of a corporate tertiary care hospital in North India

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1855
Author(s):  
Ashish Yadav ◽  
Mohammed R. Rashed
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
North India ◽  
Junior Resident ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Prescribing Error

Background: Prescribing errors are a subset of medication errors which have a potential for grave harm to the patient. Identification and acknowledgement of such errors can ameliorate much of this danger. Studies of prescribing errors are sparse in India. Such studies, whatever have been conducted, mainly focus on the out-patients or the patients on discharge. Hence, this study was undertaken to study the prescribing errors in prescriptions generated for patients admitted in wards of a corporate hospital in North India.Methods: The prescriptions for in-patients admitted in wards were analyzed for different types of prescribing errors in individual drug orders and prescription as a whole.Results: The prescribing error rate was found to be 3.3% in this study. Of all errors, errors leading to delays in patient care (i.e. Errors of prescription writing) (54.54%) and erroneous copying of the prescription to the drug chart by junior/ resident doctors (Transcription errors) (31.31%) were found to be the major causes of prescribing errors in this study. Of the former category, prescribing a wrong strength (24.24%) and illegible drug orders (12.12%) were the most numerous error subtypes. Errors leading to sub-optimal patient care (i.e. Errors of decision making) were least identified of which Therapeutic duplication (12.12%) was the most common subtype.Conclusions: The error rate found in this study is comparable to the data available from developed countries. However, there are significant differences in the occurrences of error subtypes found in this study as compared to the studies of the west.

scholarly journals Medication errors in a health care facility in southern Saudi Arabia

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 1119-1122
Author(s):  
Sultan M. Alshahrani ◽  
Khaled M. Alakhali ◽  
Yaser Mohammed Al-Worafi
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Health Care Facility ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Central Hospital ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Dispensing Error

Purpose: To identify medication errors at Aseer Central Hospital (ACH, Abha) in the southern province of Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted by reviewing adult patients’ records (> 15 years old) at ACH’s inpatient and outpatients settings over an 8-week period in October and November 2015. Results: We identified 113 medication errors, including 112 prescribing errors and 1 dispensing error. Most medication errors (91.2 %) in this study were for inpatient prescriptions. The most common prescribing error was medication duplication (31.2 %) followed by missing patient identifying information (25 %). Conclusion: Medication errors, mainly in inpatient prescriptions, have been fully identified at ACH. Educational interventions such as workshops could help minimize and prevent medication errors.

scholarly journals Implementation and evaluation of a good prescribing tip email to reduce junior doctors' prescribing errors

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 214-220
Author(s):  
Suzanne M Cooper ◽  
Raymond W Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Shared Learning ◽  
Learning Intervention ◽  
Patient Medication ◽  
Medical Wards

Background Prescribing errors are common, occurring in 7% of in-patient medication orders in UK hospitals. Foundation Year 1 (F1) doctors have reported a lack of feedback on prescribing as a cause of errors. Aim To evaluate the effect of implementing a shared learning intervention to Foundation Year 1 doctors on their prescribing errors. Methods A shared learning intervention, ‘good prescribing tip’ emails, were designed and sent fortnightly to F1s to share feedback about common/serious prescribing errors occurring in the hospital. Ward pharmacists identified prescribing errors in newly prescribed in-patient and discharge medication orders for 2 weeks pre- and post-intervention during Winter/Spring 2017. The prevalence of prescribing errors was compared pre- and post-intervention using statistical analysis. Results Overall, there was a statistically significant reduction ( p < 0.05) in the prescribing error rate between pre-intervention (441 errors in 6190 prescriptions, 7.1%) and post-intervention (245 errors in 4866 prescriptions, 5.0%). When data were analysed by ward type there was a statistically significant reduction in the prescribing error rate on medical wards (6.8% to 4.5%) and on surgical wards (8.4% to 6.2%). Conclusions It is possible to design and implement a shared learning intervention, the ‘good prescribing tip’ email. Findings suggest that this intervention contributed to a reduction in the prevalence of prescribing errors across all wards, thereby improving patient safety.

scholarly journals P029 Audit of aciclovir prescribing to assess whether changing the order of drop down box options in an electronic prescribing system can reduce prescribing errors

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (7) ◽  
pp. e2.33-e2
Author(s):  
Clarissa Gunning ◽  
Jennifer Gray
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Electronic Prescribing ◽  
Contributory Factor ◽  
List Type ◽  
Prescribing Errors ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Dosing Error

AimIn December 2016 it was identified that there had been multiple reports of prescribing errors with intravenous aciclovir on the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). After investigation it was concluded that prescribers choosing incorrectly from a drop down menu of drug and dosing options on the electronic prescribing (EP) system was the main contributory factor. From 01/02/17 the aciclovir drop down options were prioritised, with the most frequently used option appearing first, to encourage prescribers to pick the correct regimen.MethodsThe trust has been using the Phillips ICCA EP system across all intensive care units since 2016. Picking errors when prescribing are known to be a potential risk within EP systems, however tailoring these systems to guide choice also has the potential to improve patient safety by reducing the risk of prescribing errors.1 Aciclovir has a complex range of dosing recommendations, especially in paediatrics, and incorrect prescribing increases the likelihood of subtherapeutic treatment or adverse effects. The aim of this audit is to assess whether changing the order of prescription choices on the drop down menu in the EP system reduced prescribing error rates for intravenous aciclovir. All prescriptions for aciclovir on PICU were identified during the 6 months before and after implementing the change, from 01/08/16 to 31/07/17. 65 prescriptions were included in the audit and were reviewed retrospectively using the EP system and electronic medical notes to assess whether the prescribed aciclovir dose and route was correct for the patient’s age, weight and indication as well as whether the appropriate drop down option had been selected by the prescriber. Dosing was assessed against recommendations in the British National Formulary for children and trust empirical antibiotic guidelines.ResultsDosing errors were found in 22% (14/65) of prescriptions overall during the review period. Before the change was implemented 26% (9/35) of aciclovir prescription doses were incorrect, reducing to 17% (5/30) after the change. The overall dosing error rate was 14% (7/50) in prescriptions where the correct drop down option was chosen, in comparison to 47% (7/15) in cases where the wrong option had been selected, suggesting the importance of choosing the correct pre-set option to minimise prescribing error rates. In cases where doses were incorrect, the prescriber had chosen the incorrect pre-set drop down option for the patient’s age and indication in 78% (7/9) of prescriptions before the order change compared to 0% (0/5) afterwards.ConclusionThese results suggest that prescribing error rates were reduced after making alterations to the order of prescription choices on the drop down menu in the EP system and that prioritising the order of these options may positively influence prescribing. Errors were not completely eliminated suggesting more work is required to further minimise risk.ReferenceAhmed Z, Garfield S, Jani Y, et al. Impact of electronic prescribing on patient safety in hospitals: implications for the UK. Pharm J 2016;8:1–11.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document