Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19419233›Full record

SynthesisDrug safety2009

Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic review.

Penny J Lewis, Tim Dornan, David Taylor, Mary P Tully, Val Wass, Darren M Ashcroft

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01734642 (A Regional Project to Reduce Adverse Drug Reactions Due to Medication Errors in Hospital), which is not on this map. Cited by 156 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT01734642 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2013, after this paper: background citation

A Regional Project to Reduce Adverse Drug Reactions Due to Medication Errors in Hospital

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversita di VeronaRan2013 to 2013Enrolled8,000ConditionsMedication Errors
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

156 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 383 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Automation of in-hospital pharmacy dispensing: a systematic review.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Identifying high-risk medication: a systematic literature review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Penny J LewisSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. penny.lewis@manchester.ac.uk
Tim Dornan
David Taylor
Mary P Tully
Val Wass
Darren M Ashcroft
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribing errors affect patient safety throughout hospital practice. Previous reviews of studies have often targeted specific populations or settings, or did not adopt a systematic approach to reviewing the literature. Therefore, we set out to systematically review the prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (all from 1985 to October 2007) were searched for studies of prescriptions for adult or child hospital inpatients giving enough data to calculate an error rate. Electronic prescriptions and errors for single diseases, routes of administration or types of prescribing error were excluded, as were non-English language publications. Median error rate (interquartile range [IQR]) was 7% (2-14%) of medication orders, 52 (8-227) errors per 100 admissions and 24 (6-212) errors per 1000 patient days. Most studies (84%) were conducted in single hospitals and originated from the US or UK (72%). Most errors were intercepted and reported before they caused harm, although two studies reported adverse drug events. Errors were most common with antimicrobials and more common in adults (median 18% of orders [ten studies, IQR 7-25%]) than children (median 4% [six studies, IQR 2-17%]). Incorrect dosage was the most common error. Overall, it is clear that prescribing errors are a common occurrence, affecting 7% of medication orders, 2% of patient days and 50% of hospital admissions. However, the reported rates of prescribing errors varied greatly and this could be partly explained by variations in the definition of a prescribing error, the methods used to collect error data and the setting of the study. Furthermore, a lack of standardization between severity scales prevented any comparison of error severity across studies. Future research should address the wide disparity of data-collection methods and definitions that bedevils comparison of error rates or meta-analysis of different studies.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdultChildHospitalsHumansIncidenceInpatientsLength of StayMedication ErrorsPatient AdmissionPrevalenceUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19419233
OpenAlexW2147084906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.