Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.

Laura Calligaris, Angela Panzera, Luca Arnoldo, Carla Londero, Rosanna Quattrin, Maria G Troncon, Silvio Brusaferro
{"title":"Errors and omissions in hospital prescriptions: a survey of prescription writing in a hospital.","authors":"Laura Calligaris,&nbsp;Angela Panzera,&nbsp;Luca Arnoldo,&nbsp;Carla Londero,&nbsp;Rosanna Quattrin,&nbsp;Maria G Troncon,&nbsp;Silvio Brusaferro","doi":"10.1186/1472-6904-9-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The frequency of drug prescription errors is high. Excluding errors in decision making, the remaining are mainly due to order ambiguity, non standard nomenclature and writing illegibility. The aim of this study is to analyse, as a part of a continuous quality improvement program, the quality of prescriptions writing for antibiotics, in an Italian University Hospital as a risk factor for prescription errors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The point prevalence survey, carried out in May 26-30 2008, involved 41 inpatient Units. Every parenteral or oral antibiotic prescription was analysed for legibility (generic or brand drug name, dose, frequency of administration) and completeness (generic or brand name, dose, frequency of administration, route of administration, date of prescription and signature of the prescriber). Eight doctors (residents in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine) and two pharmacists performed the survey by reviewing the clinical records of medical, surgical or intensive care section inpatients. The antibiotics drug category was chosen because its use is widespread in the setting considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 756 inpatients included in the study, 408 antibiotic prescriptions were found in 298 patients (mean prescriptions per patient 1.4; SD +/- 0.6). Overall 92.7% (38/41) of the Units had at least one patient with antibiotic prescription. Legibility was in compliance with 78.9% of generic or brand names, 69.4% of doses, 80.1% of frequency of administration, whereas completeness was fulfilled for 95.6% of generic or brand names, 76.7% of doses, 83.6% of frequency of administration, 87% of routes of administration, 43.9% of dates of prescription and 33.3% of physician's signature. Overall 23.9% of prescriptions were illegible and 29.9% of prescriptions were incomplete. Legibility and completeness are higher in unusual drugs prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Intensive Care Section performed best as far as quality of prescription writing was concerned when compared with the Medical and Surgical Sections.Nevertheless the overall illegibility and incompleteness (above 20%) are unacceptably high. Values need to be improved by enhancing the safety culture and in particular the awareness of the professionals on the consequences that a bad prescription writing can produce.</p>","PeriodicalId":9196,"journal":{"name":"BMC Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"9 ","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1472-6904-9-9","citationCount":"81","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6904-9-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 81

Abstract

Background: The frequency of drug prescription errors is high. Excluding errors in decision making, the remaining are mainly due to order ambiguity, non standard nomenclature and writing illegibility. The aim of this study is to analyse, as a part of a continuous quality improvement program, the quality of prescriptions writing for antibiotics, in an Italian University Hospital as a risk factor for prescription errors.

Methods: The point prevalence survey, carried out in May 26-30 2008, involved 41 inpatient Units. Every parenteral or oral antibiotic prescription was analysed for legibility (generic or brand drug name, dose, frequency of administration) and completeness (generic or brand name, dose, frequency of administration, route of administration, date of prescription and signature of the prescriber). Eight doctors (residents in Hygiene and Preventive Medicine) and two pharmacists performed the survey by reviewing the clinical records of medical, surgical or intensive care section inpatients. The antibiotics drug category was chosen because its use is widespread in the setting considered.

Results: Out of 756 inpatients included in the study, 408 antibiotic prescriptions were found in 298 patients (mean prescriptions per patient 1.4; SD +/- 0.6). Overall 92.7% (38/41) of the Units had at least one patient with antibiotic prescription. Legibility was in compliance with 78.9% of generic or brand names, 69.4% of doses, 80.1% of frequency of administration, whereas completeness was fulfilled for 95.6% of generic or brand names, 76.7% of doses, 83.6% of frequency of administration, 87% of routes of administration, 43.9% of dates of prescription and 33.3% of physician's signature. Overall 23.9% of prescriptions were illegible and 29.9% of prescriptions were incomplete. Legibility and completeness are higher in unusual drugs prescriptions.

Conclusion: The Intensive Care Section performed best as far as quality of prescription writing was concerned when compared with the Medical and Surgical Sections.Nevertheless the overall illegibility and incompleteness (above 20%) are unacceptably high. Values need to be improved by enhancing the safety culture and in particular the awareness of the professionals on the consequences that a bad prescription writing can produce.

医院处方中的错误与遗漏:某医院处方书写调查。
背景:我国药品处方错误发生率高。除决策错误外,其余主要是由于顺序不清、命名不规范和字迹不清。作为持续质量改进方案的一部分,本研究的目的是分析意大利大学医院抗生素处方写作质量作为处方错误的风险因素。方法:于2008年5月26-30日对41个住院单位进行点状流行病学调查。分析每个肠外或口服抗生素处方的易读性(仿制药或品牌药名称、剂量、给药频率)和完整性(仿制药或品牌药名称、剂量、给药频率、给药途径、处方日期和开处方者签名)。8名医生(卫生和预防医学住院医师)和2名药剂师通过审查内科、外科或重症监护室住院病人的临床记录进行了调查。选择抗生素药物类别是因为其在所考虑的环境中使用广泛。结果:在纳入研究的756例住院患者中,298例患者中发现408种抗生素处方(平均处方数/患者1.4;Sd±0.6)。总体而言,92.7%(38/41)的单位至少有一名患者使用抗生素处方。78.9%的仿制名或品牌名、69.4%的剂量、80.1%的给药频率符合易读性,95.6%的仿制名或品牌名、76.7%的剂量、83.6%的给药频率、87%的给药途径、43.9%的处方日期和33.3%的医生签名符合完整性。23.9%的处方难以辨认,29.9%的处方不完整。异常药品处方的易读性和完整性较高。结论:重症监护科在处方书写质量方面优于内科和外科。然而,整体的不清晰和不完整(超过20%)是不可接受的高。价值观需要通过加强安全文化来改善,特别是专业人员对不良处方可能产生的后果的认识。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信