ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2017
Exploring the impact of feedback on prescribing error rates: a pilot study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confidence in Prescribing Practices: Perspectives of Senior Medical Students and Recent Graduates at Qatar University.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Can a novel constructivist theory-informed feedback intervention reduce prescribing errors ? A pre-post study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- How would final-year medical students perform if their skill-based prescription assessment was real life?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Reducing Pediatric Emergency Department Prescription Errors.Pediatrics · 2022Article
- Prescribing errors in pediatric outpatient department at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Prescribing errors are prevalent in hospital settings with feedback identified as one potential error reduction strategy. Hospital pharmacists work alongside prescribers at ward level and are credible facilitators of prescribing error feedback. A formalised programme of pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback was designed and implemented Objective To determine the impact of the feedback intervention on prescribing error rates. Method Prospective prescribing audits were undertaken at baseline for control (n = 11) and intervention group (n = 10) prescribers. The intervention group received pharmacist-led, individualised constructive feedback on their prescribing, whilst the control group continued with existing practice. Prescribing was re-audited following 3-months of the intervention. Data were analysed using chi-squared and independent t-tests. Results Error frequency (123/641 intervention and 121/649 control) was comparable between groups at baseline (p = 0.819) with significant differences (90/1677 intervention and 236/984 control) post intervention (p = <0.005). Prescribing error rates were lower in the intervention group (mean change of -11.5%) and higher in the control group (mean change of +5.9%) following the intervention, with a mean significant difference of 17.4% (SD 4.7, 95% CI, -27.3 to -7.6), t = -3.694, p < 0.05, between groups. Conclusion Pharmacist-led prescribing error feedback positively influences prescribing. This intervention shows promise for wider application in hospital settings to optimise patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28698975What 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.