Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Calandra Feather, Nicholas Appelbaum, Jacqueline Le Geyt, Sharon Jheeta, Ian Maconochie, Bryony Dean Franklin
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.","authors":"Calandra Feather, Nicholas Appelbaum, Jacqueline Le Geyt, Sharon Jheeta, Ian Maconochie, Bryony Dean Franklin","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication errors remain a major challenge in paediatric prescribing owing to the complexities of weight-based dosing, age-specific formulations and the need for precise calculations. This study examines the association of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool with prescribing errors in paediatric emergency and inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A non-randomised, before-and-after study was conducted at a London tertiary teaching hospital. Prescribing errors were assessed before and after implementing the intervention in the paediatric emergency department (PED) and a general paediatric ward. Errors were identified through manual review of medication orders against predefined criteria based on the British National Formulary for Children and local prescribing guidelines. Dose errors were defined as deviations of ±10% from recommended ranges, with deviations ≥25% categorised as major. Statistical analysis included descriptive comparisons, logistic regression and intention to treat analysis to assess the effect associated with the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1808 medication orders were reviewed, including 1567 standard practice orders and 241 intervention-supported orders. When the intervention was used, the overall prescribing error rate was 1.2%, compared with 7.14% in the control orders, representing an 83% reduction in the odds of error (OR 0.17). In the general paediatric ward, errors reduced from 9.1% to 1.1% (OR 0.11), while in PED, error rates declined from 4.9% to 1.4% (OR 0.27). Errors that occurred when using the intervention were attributed to prescriber deviation from system recommendations rather than inaccuracies within the tool itself.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that use of the intervention is associated with significantly lower odds of a prescribing error occurring in paediatric settings. Future work should focus on optimising prescriber adherence, enhancing system integration into clinical workflows and exploring economic and user-experience outcomes to maximise impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003662","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medication errors remain a major challenge in paediatric prescribing owing to the complexities of weight-based dosing, age-specific formulations and the need for precise calculations. This study examines the association of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool with prescribing errors in paediatric emergency and inpatient settings.

Methods: A non-randomised, before-and-after study was conducted at a London tertiary teaching hospital. Prescribing errors were assessed before and after implementing the intervention in the paediatric emergency department (PED) and a general paediatric ward. Errors were identified through manual review of medication orders against predefined criteria based on the British National Formulary for Children and local prescribing guidelines. Dose errors were defined as deviations of ±10% from recommended ranges, with deviations ≥25% categorised as major. Statistical analysis included descriptive comparisons, logistic regression and intention to treat analysis to assess the effect associated with the intervention.

Results: A total of 1808 medication orders were reviewed, including 1567 standard practice orders and 241 intervention-supported orders. When the intervention was used, the overall prescribing error rate was 1.2%, compared with 7.14% in the control orders, representing an 83% reduction in the odds of error (OR 0.17). In the general paediatric ward, errors reduced from 9.1% to 1.1% (OR 0.11), while in PED, error rates declined from 4.9% to 1.4% (OR 0.27). Errors that occurred when using the intervention were attributed to prescriber deviation from system recommendations rather than inaccuracies within the tool itself.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that use of the intervention is associated with significantly lower odds of a prescribing error occurring in paediatric settings. Future work should focus on optimising prescriber adherence, enhancing system integration into clinical workflows and exploring economic and user-experience outcomes to maximise impact.

评估基于适应症的患者特异性处方工具对儿科处方错误的影响:一项非随机、前后对照研究。
背景:由于基于体重的剂量、针对年龄的配方的复杂性以及精确计算的需要,用药错误仍然是儿科处方中的一个主要挑战。本研究探讨了一种基于适应症的、针对患者的处方工具与儿科急诊和住院环境中的处方错误之间的关系。方法:在伦敦一家三级教学医院进行了一项非随机的前后对照研究。在儿科急诊科(PED)和普通儿科病房实施干预之前和之后评估处方错误。根据英国国家儿童处方集和当地处方指南,通过人工审查药物订单来确定错误。剂量误差定义为与推荐范围偏差±10%,偏差≥25%归类为主要。统计分析包括描述性比较、逻辑回归和治疗意向分析,以评估与干预相关的效果。结果:共审查用药单1808份,其中标准执业单1567份,干预支持单241份。当使用干预措施时,总体处方错误率为1.2%,而对照单为7.14%,错误率降低了83% (OR 0.17)。在普通儿科病房,错误率从9.1%下降到1.1% (OR 0.11),而在PED,错误率从4.9%下降到1.4% (OR 0.27)。使用干预措施时发生的错误归因于处方者偏离系统建议,而不是工具本身的不准确。结论:这些发现表明,使用干预措施与儿科环境中发生处方错误的几率显著降低有关。未来的工作应侧重于优化处方依从性,加强系统与临床工作流程的整合,并探索经济和用户体验结果,以最大限度地发挥影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信