Prescribing errors in general practice

Prescribing errors are relatively common in general practice. Jennifer McCutcheon provides an overview of common prescribing errors and how they can be prevented Nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals are increasingly becoming prescribers and many of them work autonomously in general practice. Prescribing professionals have a duty to understand what a prescribing error is, common examples of errors in practice, how they are prevented and how they can be investigated and reported should they occur.

A pilot study about methods to reduce prescription errors in a chemotherapy day unit – Aspects to consider in pharmacist verification process

Introduction Prescribing errors can happen unintentionally during the prescribing process, or when choosing a treatment therapy. Prescribing errors have the highest prevalence amongst common error types related to chemotherapy medication in outpatient settings. According to the Joint Commission International (JCI), prescriptions should be reviewed for appropriateness by someone else than the prescriber or practitioner to prevent medication errors. Aim The study was aimed to map out the existing type and amount of occurring deviations in prescribing and to clarify the current chemotherapy prescribing practices at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Helsinki University Hospital. Similar research has not been published in Finland before. Methods and patients The researcher selected patients randomly from the daily outpatient attendance list following a predetermined numerical order. Data was collected by conducting a medication verification review in line with the JCI guidance by a clinical pharmacist the day before the patient's clinic appointment using the available medical documentation. A clinical pharmacist evaluated findings from prescriptions and contacted an oncologist if the findings were considered clinically significant. Results A clinical pharmacist verified prescriptions from 101 patients for appropriateness and found discrepancies in four percent of the prescriptions ( n = 4/101). The oncologist approved 50 percent of the suggested amendments by the pharmacist as clinically significant ( n = 2/4). The study revealed that patient’s regular home medications were not always correctly recorded into the database, so verification of medicine interactions could not be trusted as completely accurate. It took on average 16 min per patient to perform a medication verification review. The process was slowed down by the lack of detailed enough protocols for this purpose and the current patient care record system not having structural formatting of data entry. Conclusions Verification of prescriptions provides a tool to identify prescribing discrepancies and to prevent unintended medication errors affecting patients. The development of detailed protocols and guidelines, as well as an appropriate training program, would support pharmacists in compiling clinical medication reviews for chemotherapy patients. More research is needed to further develop the operating model in Finland. Information gathered from this study can be used for identifying training requirements.

Legal aspects of prescribing

Paramedic independent prescribing is in its infancy and there are limitations to the range of medicines that can be prescribed when compared with other professions undertaking independent prescribing. Medication and prescribing errors are common events within the NHS in England, resulting in a substantial number of litigation and fitness-to-practise proceedings against other professions in relation to prescribing and medicines management. It is foreseeable that paramedic independent prescribers could also find themselves subject to legal action. This article considers a fictitious scenario where a patient suffers harm as a result of a prescribing decision and the legal implications for the prescriber.

Characteristics of pharmacist’s interventions triggered by prescribing errors related to computerised physician order entry in French hospitals: a cross-sectional observational study

ObjectivesComputerised physician order entry (CPOE) systems facilitate the review of medication orders by pharmacists. Reports have emerged that show conception flaws or the misuse of CPOE systems generate prescribing errors. We aimed to characterise pharmacist interventions (PIs) triggered by prescribing errors identified as system-related errors (PISREs) in French hospitals.DesignThis was a cross-sectional observational study based on PIs prospectively documented in the Act-IP observatory database from January 2014 to December 2018.SettingPISREs from 319 French computerised healthcare facilities were analysed.ParticipantsAmong the 319 French hospitals, 232 (72.7%) performed SRE interventions, involving 652 (51%) pharmacists.ResultsAmong the 331 678 PIs recorded, 27 058 were qualified as due to SREs (8.2%). The main drug-related problems associated with PISREs were supratherapeutic (27.5%) and subtherapeutic dosage (17.2%), non-conformity with guidelines/contraindications (22.4%) and improper administration (17.9%). The PI prescriber acceptation rate was 78.9% for SREs vs 67.6% for other types of errors. The PISRE ratio was estimated relative to the total number of PIs. Concerning the certification status of CPOE systems, the PISRE ratio was 9.4% for non-certified systems vs 5.5% for certified systems (p<0.001). The PISRE ratio for senior pharmacists was 9.2% and that for pharmacy residents 5.4% (p<0.001). Concerning prescriptions made by graduate prescribers and those made by residents, the PISRE ratio was 8.4% and 7.8%, respectively (p<0.001).ConclusionComputer-related prescribing errors are common. The PI acceptance rate by prescribers was higher than that observed for PIs that were not CPOE related. This suggests that physicians consider the potential clinical consequences of SREs for patients to be more frequently serious than interventions unrelated to CPOE. CPOE medication review requires continual pharmacist diligence to catch these errors. The significantly lower PISRE ratio for certified software should prompt patient safety agencies to undertake studies to identify the safest software and discard software that is potentially dangerous.

Comparison of Prescribing Errors in Different Wards of Tertiary Care Hospital before and after Implementation of CPOE System

Background: Medication prescribing errors were always known as inevitable errors in health care system which mainly includes physician’s writing error which then leads to wrong dispensing error. Manual Prescribing has now shifted to CPOE System that seems to be more efficient. Through this system, it is believed that quality and patient security is improved by lessening medicine and different mistakes at various phases of the request the board procedure and by maintaining a strategic reserve from repetitive testing. This Study was conducted to compare the prescribing errors in different hospital wards of a tertiary care hospital for in-patients by using two approaches; Manual Prescribing and CPOE System Prescribing. Methods: This cross sectional study was conducted on manual prescriptions for three months and on CPOE prescriptions for three months. In this way a total of 4102 prescriptions were evaluated for different types of prescribing errors occurred in different wards. Whole study was conducted on In-patients from all the wards in the hospital except Emergency and OPD patients. Results and Discussion: The results showed that the maximum number of manual prescription errors were found in Medical ICU ward, while prescribing errors for CPOE setup were found comparatively at higher rate in Medicinal ward. It was also found that maximum frequency of prescribing errors were found in Lower Respiratory Tract Infections in both the settings; CPOE System and Manual Prescribing Conclusion: It was concluded that CPOE system is helpful for reducing prescribing errors but it must be supervised by pharmacists to overcome potential errors.

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

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.

Pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors: Use of a standardized approach in the inpatient setting

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose The objective of this study was to implement a standardized process across health systems to determine the prevalence and clinical relevance of prescribing errors intercepted by pharmacists. Methods This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted across 11 hospitals. Pharmacist-intercepted prescribing errors were collected during inpatient order verification over 6 consecutive weeks utilizing a standardized documentation process. The potential harm of each error was evaluated using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC-MERP) index with physician validation, and errors were stratified into those with potentially low, serious, or life-threatening harm. Endpoints included the median error rate per 1,000 patient days, error type, and potential harm with correlating cost avoidance. Results Pharmacists intervened on 7,187 errors, resulting in a mean error rate of 39 errors per 1,000 patient days. Among the errors, 46.6% (n = 3,349) were determined to have potentially serious consequences and 2.4% (n = 175) could have been life-threatening if not intercepted. This equates to $874,000 in avoided cost. The top 3 error types occurring with the highest frequency were "wrong dose/rate/frequency” (n = 2,298, 32.0%), “duplicate therapy” (n = 1,431, 19.9%), and "wrong timing” (n = 960, 13.4%). “Wrong dose/rate/frequency” (n = 49, 28%), “duplicate therapy” (n = 26, 14.9%), and “drug-disease interaction” (n = 24, 13.7%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potential for life-threatening harm. “Wrong dose/rate/frequency” (n = 1,028, 30.7%), “wrong timing” (n = 573, 17.1%), and “duplicate therapy” (n = 482, 14.4%) errors occurred with the highest frequency among errors with potentially serious harm. Conclusion Documentation of pharmacist intervention on prescribing errors via a standardized process creates a platform for multicenter analysis of prescribing error trends and an opportunity for development of system-wide solutions to reduce potential harm from prescribing errors.

Safe and Effective Digital Anticoagulation: A Continuous Iterative Improvement Approach

Background Anticoagulant drugs are the leading cause of medication harm in hospitals and prescribing errors are common with traditional paper prescriptions. Electronic medicines management can reduce prescribing errors for many drugs; however, little is known about the impact of e-prescribing on anticoagulants. Our case study reports on the lessons learned during conversion from paper to e-prescribing and the ongoing optimization process. Methods The iterative implementation of an anticoagulant prescribing platform in an integrated electronic medical record (ieMR) and ongoing continuous enhancements was applied across five digital hospital sites utilizing a single domain. The collaborative management of each class of anticoagulant, optimization strategies, governance structures, and lessons learned is described. An analysis of the rate of errors and adverse events pre- and post-go live is presented. Results The transition to e-prescribing relied on a strong inter-disciplinary governance framework to promote the safe management of anticoagulants. There was no increase in overall prescribing errors, however unfamiliarity with the new system caused a transient increase in errors with unfractionated heparin (1.8/month pre-ieMR vs. 5.5/month post-ieMR). A dedicated real-time surveillance dashboard was introduced. The iterative nature of changes indicated the complexities involved with anticoagulants and the need for an interactive, optimization approach. This led to a significant decrease in anticoagulant related hospital acquired complications (12.1/month pre-ieMR vs. 7.8/month post-ieMR, p = 0.01). Conclusion Digitizing anticoagulant prescribing led to an overall reduction in errors, but a continuous iterative optimization approach was needed to achieve this outcome. The knowledge presented can help inform optimal therapeutic anticoagulation ieMR design strategies.

Medication Errors: Reported Prescription Faults and Prescription Error

The present study aimed to evaluate the trends of prescription errors that did not caused any harm to the patients and the prescription errors that were identified before reaching to the patients in the year 2017 at a tertiary care hospital in Kingdom Saudi Arabia. Simple random sampling and sampling based on prescription errors that were identified, documented, and reported before reaching the patients in the first three quarters of 2017 were performed in present observational retrospective study. Descriptive analysis with D’Agostino & Pearson omnibus were applied for normality testing at 95% CI through one-sample t-test to compare the prescription errors that did not cause harm to the patients and were identified before reaching the patient in the first quarter (Q1), the second quarter (Q2), and the third quarter (Q3) of 2017. Total number of prescription errors that did not caused harm to the patients were 1,601 in Quarter 1 further decreased to 1,422 in Quarter 2 and then increased to 1,710 in Quarter 3 of 2017. Furthermore, the total number of prescription errors that did not cause harm to the patients were 1,601 in Quarter 1 further decreased to 1,422 in Quarter 2 and then increased to 1,710 in Quarter 3 of 2017. The current study revealed that prescription errors were common in the tertiary Hospital, Taif, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, educating the prescribers to reduce prescription errors through seminars, conferences, and workshops is essential. Also, a joint training exercise for the pharmacist and doctors would minimize the prescribing errors.