Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25561864›Full record

ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2014

Assessment of legibility and completeness of handwritten and electronic prescriptions.

Ahmed I Albarrak, Eman Abdulrahman Al Rashidi, Rwaa Kamil Fatani, Shoog Ibrahim Al Ageel, Rafiuddin Mohammed

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Ahmed I AlbarrakCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Eman Abdulrahman Al RashidiCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rwaa Kamil FataniCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Shoog Ibrahim Al AgeelCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rafiuddin MohammedCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the legibility and completeness of handwritten prescriptions and compare with electronic prescription system for medication errors.

designProspective study.

settingKing Khalid University Hospital (KKUH), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. SUBJECTS AND

methodsHandwritten prescriptions were received from clinical units of Medicine Outpatient Department (MOPD), Primary Care Clinic (PCC) and Surgery Outpatient Department (SOPD) whereas electronic prescriptions were collected from the pediatric ward. The handwritten prescription was assessed for completeness by the checklist designed according to the hospital prescription and evaluated for legibility by two pharmacists. The comparison between handwritten and electronic prescription errors was evaluated based on the validated checklist adopted from previous studies.

main outcome measuresLegibility and completeness of prescriptions.

results398 prescriptions (199 handwritten and 199 e-prescriptions) were assessed. About 71 (35.7%) of handwritten and 5 (2.5%) of electronic prescription errors were identified. A significant statistical difference (P < 0.001) was observed between handwritten and e-prescriptions in omitted dose and omitted route of administration category of error distribution. The rate of completeness in patient identification in handwritten prescriptions was 80.97% in MOPD, 76.36% in PCC and 85.93% in SOPD clinic units. Assessment of medication prescription completeness was 91.48% in MOPD, 88.48% in PCC, and 89.28% in SOPD.

conclusionsThis study revealed a high incidence of prescribing errors in handwritten prescriptions. The use of e-prescription system showed a significant decline in the incidence of errors. The legibility of handwritten prescriptions was relatively good whereas the level of completeness was very low.

Indexed as

Electronic prescriptionHandwritten prescriptionLegibilityMedication errors

Identifiers

PMID25561864
PMCPMC4281619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.