ArticleGhana medical journal2016
Prevalence and pattern of prescription errors in a Nigerian kidney hospital.
Article in Ghana medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine (i) the prevalence and pattern of prescription errors in our Centre and, (ii) appraise pharmacists' intervention and correction of identified prescription errors.
designA descriptive, single blinded cross-sectional study.
settingKidney Care Centre is a public Specialist hospital. The monthly patient load averages 60 General Out-patient cases and 17.4 in-patients.
participantsA total of 31 medical doctors (comprising of 2 Consultant Nephrologists, 15 Medical Officers, 14 House Officers), 40 nurses and 24 ward assistants participated in the study. One pharmacist runs the daily call schedule. Prescribers were blinded to the study. Prescriptions containing only galenicals were excluded.
interventionsAn error detection mechanism was set up to identify and correct prescription errors. Life-threatening prescriptions were discussed with the Quality Assurance Team of the Centre who conveyed such errors to the prescriber without revealing the on-going study.
main outcome measuresPrevalence of prescription errors, pattern of prescription errors, pharmacist's intervention.
resultsA total of 2,660 (75.0%) combined prescription errors were found to have one form of error or the other; illegitimacy 1,388 (52.18%), omission 1,221(45.90%), wrong dose 51(1.92%) and no error of style was detected. Life-threatening errors were low (1.1-2.2%). Errors were found more commonly among junior doctors and non-medical doctors. Only 56 (1.6%) of the errors were detected and corrected during the process of dispensing.
conclusionPrescription errors related to illegitimacy and omissions were highly prevalent. There is a need to improve on patient-to-healthcare giver ratio. A medication quality assurance unit is needed in our hospitals.
fundingNo financial support was received by any of the authors for this study.
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.