Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22628136›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2012

The use of a consultant-led ward round checklist to improve paediatric prescribing: an interrupted time series study.

Carole Lépée, Robert E Klaber, Jonathan Benn, Penny J Fletcher, Pieter-Jan Cortoos, Ann Jacklin, Bryony Dean Franklin

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Interventions for reducing medication errors in children in hospital.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Carole LépéeSciences du Risque dans le domaine de la Santé, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université d'Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Robert E Klaber
Jonathan Benn
Penny J Fletcher
Pieter-Jan Cortoos
Ann Jacklin
Bryony Dean Franklin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChecklistQuality ImprovementChildDocumentationDrug PrescriptionsHospitals, TeachingHumansLondonMedication ErrorsPatient SafetyPediatricsProspective StudiesQuality Assurance, Health CareRegression AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

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.