ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Developing consensus on hospital prescribing indicators of potential harm for infants and children.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preventable medication harm across health care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Identifying potential prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Quality indicators for opioid stewardship interventions in hospital inpatient and emergency departments: a systematic review.Pain reports · 2025Review
- From prescribing indicators to rational drug use: a medication safety perspective.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- An e-Delphi study to obtain expert consensus on the level of risk associated with preventable e-prescribing events.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Developing consensus on hospital prescribing indicators of potential harm for infants and children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe aim of the study was to develop a list of hospital based paediatric prescribing indicators that can be used to assess the impact of electronic prescribing or clinical decision support tools on paediatric prescribing errors.
methodsTwo rounds of an electronic consensus method (eDelphi) were carried out with 21 expert panellists from the UK. Panellists were asked to score each prescribing indicator for its likelihood of occurrence and severity of outcome should the error occur. The scores were combined to produce a risk score and a median score for each indicator calculated. The degree of consensus between panellists was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or higher was achieved and were in the high risk categories.
resultsEach of the 21 panellists completed an exploratory round and two rounds of scoring. This identified 41 paediatric prescribing indicators with a high risk rating and greater than 80% consensus. The most common error type within the indicators was wrong dose (n = 19) and the most common drug classes were antimicrobials (n = 10) and cardiovascular (n = 7).
conclusionsA set of 41 paediatric prescribing indicators describing potential harm for the hospital setting has been identified by an expert panel. The indicators provide a standardized method of evaluation of prescribing data on both paper and electronic systems. They can also be used to assess implementation of clinical decision support systems or other quality improvement initiatives.
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.