ArticleBMJ open2019
Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment and evaluation of prescribing competences: A systematic review and recommendations.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Online Peer-Assisted Learning and Faculty-Led Teaching for Short Answer Questions.The clinical teacher · 2025Trial
- Development of Immediate Self-Feedback Very Short Answer Questions: Implementing Testlet Response Theory in Formative Examinations Across Multiple Occasions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Development and validation of immediate self-feedback very short answer questions for medical students: practical implementation of generalizability theory to estimate reliability in formative examination designs.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of short, personalised student assistantships: an evaluative study across eight London hospitals.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Standard setting Very Short Answer Questions (VSAQs) relative to Single Best Answer Questions (SBAQs): does having access to the answers make a difference?BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Transforming MRCPsych theory examinations: digitisation and very short answer questions (VSAQs).BJPsych bulletin · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the utility and ability of the novel prescribing very short answer (VSA) question format to identify the sources of undergraduate prescribing errors when compared with the conventional single best answer (SBA) question format and assess the acceptability of machine marking prescribing VSAs.
designA prospective study involving analysis of data generated from a pilot two-part prescribing assessment.
settingTwo UK medical schools.
participants364 final year medical students took part. Participation was voluntary. There were no other inclusion or exclusion criteria. OUTCOMES: (1) Time taken to mark and verify VSA questions (acceptability), (2) differences between VSA and SBA scores, (3) performance in VSA and (4) SBA format across different subject areas and types of prescribing error made in the VSA format.
results18 200 prescribing VSA questions were marked and verified in 91 min. The median percentage score for the VSA test was significantly lower than the SBA test (28% vs 64%, p<0.0001). Significantly more prescribing errors were detected in the VSA format than the SBA format across all domains, notably in prescribing insulin (96.4% vs 50.3%, p<0.0001), fluids (95.6% vs 55%, p<0.0001) and analgesia (85.7% vs 51%, p<0.0001). Of the incorrect VSA responses, 33.1% were due to the medication prescribed, 6.0% due to the dose, 1.4% due to the route and 4.8% due to the frequency.
conclusionsPrescribing VSA questions represent an efficient tool for providing detailed insight into the sources of significant prescribing errors, which are not identified by SBA questions. This makes the prescribing VSA a valuable formative assessment tool to enhance students' skills in safe prescribing and to potentially reduce prescribing errors.
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.