Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27843792›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

A study of medication errors in a tertiary care hospital.

Nrupal Patel, Mira Desai, Samdih Shah, Prakruti Patel, Anuradha Gandhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Epidemiology of Medication Errors in Indian Hospital Settings: A Systematic Literature Review.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Methicillin-resistantQatar medical journal · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Incidence of Medication Error in Critical Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Hospital: Where Do We Stand?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Framework for Patient Safety.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Nrupal PatelDepartment of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, Gujarat, India.
Mira DesaiDepartment of Pharmacology, B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Samdih ShahDepartment of Pharmacology, B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Prakruti PatelDepartment of Pharmacology, B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Anuradha GandhiDepartment of Pharmacology, B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the nature and types of medication errors (MEs), to evaluate occurrence of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and assess rationality of prescription orders in a tertiary care teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective, observational study was conducted in General Medicine and Pediatric ward of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad during October 2012 to January 2014. MEs were categorized as prescription error, dispensing error, and administration error (AE). The case records and treatment charts were reviewed. The investigator also accompanied the staff nurse during the ward rounds and interviewed patients or care taker to gather information, if necessary. DDIs were assessed by Medscape Drug Interaction Checker software (version 4.4). Rationality of prescriptions was assessed using Phadke's criteria.

resultsA total of 1109 patients (511 in Medicine and 598 in Pediatric ward) were included during the study period. Total number of MEs was 403 (36%) of which, 195 (38%) were in Medicine and 208 (35%) were in Pediatric wards. The most common ME was PEs 262 (65%) followed by AEs 126 (31%). A potential significant DDIs were observed in 191 (17%) and serious DDIs in 48 (4%) prescriptions. Majority of prescriptions were semirational 555 (53%) followed by irrational 317 (30%), while 170 (17%) prescriptions were rational.

conclusionThere is a need to establish ME reporting system to reduce its incidence and improve patient care and safety.

Indexed as

Medication errorsmedicineMedscape Drug Interaction CheckerpediatricPhadke's criteria

Identifiers

PMID27843792
PMCPMC5079090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.