Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16180938›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2005

The incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: an overview of the research methods.

Bryony Dean Franklin, Charles Vincent, Mike Schachter, Nick Barber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for reducing medication errors in children in hospital.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Impact of technology-assisted versus manual sterile compounding on safety and efficiency in a Canadian community hospital.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Learning from errors: analysis of medication order voiding in CPOE systems.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bryony Dean FranklinAcademic Pharmacy Unit, Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust & School of Pharmacy, University of London, London, UK. bdean@hhnt.nhs.uk
Charles Vincent
Mike Schachter
Nick Barber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many different methods have been used to study the incidence of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. The objectives of this review were to outline the methods used, highlight their strengths and limitations, and summarise the incidence of prescribing errors reported. Methods used may be retrospective or prospective and based on process or on outcome. Reported prescribing error rates vary widely, ranging from 0.3% to 39.1% of medication orders written and from 1% to 100% of hospital admissions. Unfortunately, there is no standard denominator for use when expressing prescribing error rates. It could be argued that the most meaningful is the number of medication orders written; however, it is also helpful to consider the number of medication orders written per patient stay in order to understand the risk that a given prescribing error rate poses to an individual patient. Because of wide variation in the definitions and methods used, it is difficult to make comparisons between different studies. Each method for identifying prescribing errors has advantages and disadvantages. Process-based studies potentially allow all errors to be identified, giving more scope for the identification of trends and learning opportunities, and it may be easier to collect sufficient data to show statistically significant changes in prescribing error rates following interventions to reduce them. However, studies based on process may be criticised for focusing on many minor errors that are very unlikely to have resulted in patient harm. Focusing instead on harm, as in outcome-based studies, allows efforts to reduce errors to be targeted on those areas that are likely to result in the highest impact. Therefore, the most appropriate method depends on the study's aims. However, using a combination of methods is likely to be the most useful approach if comprehensive data are required.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsHumansIncidenceMedication ErrorsProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID16180938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.