Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29354533›Full record

ReviewIntegrated pharmacy research & practice2016

A systematic review of the nature of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies.

Khaled Aldhwaihi, Fabrizio Schifano, Cinzia Pezzolesi, Nkiruka Umaru

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Automation of in-hospital pharmacy dispensing: a systematic review.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  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. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Khaled AldhwaihiDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Fabrizio SchifanoDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Cinzia PezzolesiDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Nkiruka UmaruDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
University of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDispensing errors are common in hospital pharmacies. Investigating dispensing errors is important for identifying the factors involved and developing strategies to reduce their occurrence.

objectivesTo review published studies exploring the incidence and types of dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies and factors contributing to these errors.

methodsElectronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2000 and January 2015. Inclusion criteria were: studies published in English, and studies investigating type, incidence and factors contributing to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies. One researcher searched for all relevant published articles, screened all titles and abstracts, and obtained complete articles. A second researcher assessed the titles, abstracts, and complete articles to verify the reliability of the selected articles. KEY

findingsFifteen studies met the inclusion criteria all of which were conducted in just four countries. Reviewing incident reports and direct observation were the main methods used to investigate dispensing errors. Dispensing error rates varied between countries (0.015%-33.5%) depending on the dispensing system, research method, and classification of dispensing error types. The most frequent dispensing errors reported were dispensing the wrong medicine, dispensing the wrong drug strength, and dispensing the wrong dosage form. The most common factors associated with dispensing errors were: high workload, low staffing, mix-up of look-alike/ sound-alike drugs, lack of knowledge/experience, distractions/interruptions, and communication problems within the dispensary team.

conclusionStudies relating to dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies are few in number and have been conducted in just four countries. The majority of these studies focused on the investigation of dispensing error types with no mention of contributing factors or strategies for reducing dispensing errors. Others studies are thus needed to investigate dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies, and a combined approach is recommended to investigate contributing factors associated with dispensing errors and explore strategies for reducing these errors.

Indexed as

contributing factorsdispensing errorshospital pharmacymedication errorspatient safety

Identifiers

PMID29354533
PMCPMC5741032
OpenAlexW2234315266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.