Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2012
The use of a consultant-led ward round checklist to improve paediatric prescribing: an interrupted time series study.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Optimizing ward rounds: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance patient safety.The British journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Patient Care on Surgical Ward Rounds: A Systematic Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to Reduce Pediatric Prescribing Errors in Professional Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review of the Last Decade.Paediatric drugs · 2021Pooled it
- Mapping the prevalence and nature of drug related problems among hospitalised children in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2019Pooled it
- Prevalence of Medication Errors Among Paediatric Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Drug safety · 2019Pooled it
- The Prevalence of Dose Errors Among Paediatric Patients in Hospital Wards with and without Health Information Technology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Drug safety · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for reducing medication errors in children in hospital.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Qualitative exploration of practices to prevent medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a focus group study.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2018Article
- Elaboration and Validation of the Medication Prescription Safety Checklist.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2017Article
- Article
- Reducing the risk of harm from medication errors in children.Health services insights · 2013Review
- Medication prescribing checklists and their impact on patient safety: A scoping review.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhAArticle
- A Scoping Review of Patient Safety Checklists in Pediatrics.Academic pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledA Check and Correct checklist has previously been developed to increase feedback on prescribing quality and enhance physicians' focus on patients' drug charts during ward rounds. Our objective was to assess the impact of introducing such a prescribing checklist on the quality and safety of inpatient prescribing in two paediatric wards in a London teaching hospital. Between 15 March 2011 and 15 May 2011 (pre-intervention) and between 23 May 2011 and 23 July 2011 (post-intervention), we recorded rates of both technical prescription writing errors and clinical prescribing errors twice a week. During the pre-intervention period, the overall technical error rate was 10.8 % (95 % confidence interval 10.3 %-11.2 %); the clinical error rate was 4.7 % (3.4 %-6.6 %). The most common errors were absence of prescriber's contact details and dose omissions. After the implementation of Check and Correct, error rates were 7.3 % (6.9 %-7.8 %) and 5.5 % (3.9 %-7.9 %), respectively. Segmented regression analysis revealed a significant decrease of -5.0 % in the technical error rate (-7.1 to -2.9 %; -37.7 % relative decrease; R (2) = 0.604) following the intervention, independent of changes in overall medical records' documentation quality. Regarding clinical errors, no significant impact of the intervention could be detected.
conclusionImplementing a Check and Correct checklist led to an improvement in the quality of prescription writing. Although a change in culture may be needed to maximise its potential, we would recommend its more widespread use and evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22628136What OpenQuestion holds
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.