ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2020
Comparison of pharmacy technicians' and doctors' medication transcribing errors at hospital discharge.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Roles and impact of pharmacy technicians on hospital wards: a systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Pharmaceutical technical assistants on hospital wards: Qualitative interdisciplinary perspectives.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Designing Effective Protocol-Based Pharmacotherapy Management: Assessment of the Development Processes and Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care Prescription Management.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of primary care pharmacy technicians in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and acne management using TARGET resources.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the transcribing error rates of discharge prescriptions between pharmacy technicians and doctors in an acute hospital setting. Methods: Pharmacy technicians were trained in the transcribing of discharge medications from inpatient to discharge medication charts. Prospective prescribing audits were undertaken over 5 days on eight hospital medical wards by ward pharmacists to compare pharmacy technician (on four wards) and doctor (on four wards) discharge transcribing error rates. Transcribed discharge medications were compared with the inpatient medication list by ward pharmacists to identify any transcription errors. Transcribing data for each technician and doctor, and number of items and errors, were input into SPSS and analysed using relevant statistical tests. Results: Doctors (n=12) transcribed 77 discharge prescriptions, and 678 items with 127 errors recorded (18.7% error rate). Pharmacy technicians (n=8) transcribed 63 discharge prescriptions, and 654 items with 25 errors recorded (3.8% error rate), a significant difference between groups in error frequency (χ Conclusions: Pharmacy technicians have significantly lower discharge transcribing error rates compared with doctors. This service intervention has the potential to improve patient safety and minimise inefficiencies from correcting errors. Further work is needed to explore the views and opinions of service users of the intervention, and why technician-transcribing error rates are significantly lower than doctors.
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.