ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2019
A new approach of assessing patient safety aspects in routine practice using the example of "doctors handwritten prescriptions".
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2019. 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.
- Reducing Physician Burnout Through Workflow Redesign: A Quality-Improvement Initiative.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Speaking up about patient safety concerns: view of nursing students.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Deployment of Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in public Styrian hospitals: a five year perspective.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- A new approach of assessing patient safety aspects in routine practice using the example of "doctors handwritten prescriptions".Journal of clinical nursing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesTo test the method of self- and external assessment as a feedback system to decrease illegibility and incorrectness of handwritten prescriptions and to reduce additional workload for nursing staff.
backgroundIllegibility and incorrectness of handwritten prescriptions occur very often and are the most crucial factors affecting patient safety.
designSelf- versus external assessment using a 15 items checklist.
methodsNurses randomly selected five fever charts of their wards. Each fever chart was self- as well as externally assessed. Nurses and doctors took part in the self-assessment, and the external assessment was performed by external experts. According to a monitor suspension system, assessment results were considered "green," "yellow" or "red." After the first assessment and issuing feedback of the results "red" scored wards by the external assessment, additional trainings were performed. Thereafter, a second assessment was performed to rate eligibility and completeness of prescriptions. The research and reporting methodology followed squire 2.0.
resultsIn total, 580 fever charts were self- as well as externally assessed (290 in each of the two assessment periods). Out of the 58 participating wards, 31 were surgical and 27 were non-surgical wards. Averaging over all checklist items, surgical and non-surgical wards improved only slightly over time. Linear regression models for ward means showed that there were significant improvements over time for non-surgical wards.
conclusionsThis method directly involves those who commit errors and stimulate learning from errors. The approach of self- and external assessment was a useful instrument to detect inadequate prescriptions and to monitor improvements. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Significant improvements were achieved regarding correctness and legibility of handwritten prescription and helped to decrease additional workload for nursing staff and thereby enhanced patient safety.
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.