ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014
The effectiveness of a 'Do Not Use' list and perceptions of healthcare professionals on error-prone abbreviations.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Contextual property detection in Dutch diagnosis descriptions for uncertainty, laterality and temporality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of error-prone abbreviations has led to medication errors. Many safety organisations have introduced 'Do Not Use' lists (lists of error-prone abbreviations that should be avoided by prescribers), but the effectiveness of these lists have not been studied.
objectiveWe assessed the effectiveness of the 'Do Not Use' list introduced to the study hospital, and sought the attitudes of healthcare professionals on other potentially dangerous abbreviations (not included in the 'Do Not Use' list) used in prescriptions.
settingThe study was conducted in a university affiliated tertiary hospital in Hong Kong.
methodsAn uncontrolled observational study was conducted. In-patient prescriptions were reviewed to assess the use of error-prone abbreviations included in the 'Do Not Use' list before, after its introduction, and following the first reinforcement. An on-line survey was also conducted among prescribers, pharmacists and nurses.
main outcome measureRate of using error-prone abbreviations and other unapproved abbreviations among reviewed prescriptions.
results3,238 prescriptions (23,398 drug items) were reviewed. The use of abbreviations in the 'Do Not Use' list decreased from 7.8 to 3.3 % after its introduction (P < 0.001) and to 1.3 % after the first reinforcement (P < 0.001). However, unapproved abbreviations were used to denote prescribing instructions in 19.2 % of the drugs prescribed. 49 different types of unapproved abbreviations were used for drug names.
conclusionsA 'Do Not Use' list is effective in reducing error-prone abbreviations. Reinforcements of the 'Do Not Use' list further improves prescriber adherence. However, many other unapproved abbreviations (not included in current 'Do Not Use' lists) are used when prescribing. Periodic reminders on error-prone abbreviations and education of prescribers on associated risks may help to reduce the use of error-prone abbreviations in hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.