ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2020
A mixed methods analysis of lithium-related patient safety incidents in primary care.
Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient safety incidents within adult community-based mental health services in England: A mixed-methods examination of reported incidents, contributory factors, and proposed solutions.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLithium is a drug with a narrow therapeutic range and has been associated with a number of serious adverse effects. This study aimed to characterise primary care lithium-related patient safety incidents submitted to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) database with respect to incident origin, type, contributory factors and outcome. The intention was to identify ways to minimise risk to future patients by examining incidents with a range of harm outcomes.
methodsA mixed methods analysis of patient safety incident reports related to lithium was conducted. Data from healthcare organisations in England and Wales were extracted from the NRLS database. An exploratory descriptive analysis was undertaken to characterise the most frequent incident types, the associated chain of events and other contributory factors.
resultsA total of 174 reports containing the term 'lithium' were identified. Of these, 41 were excluded and, from the remaining 133 reports, 138 incidents were identified and coded. Community pharmacies reported 100 incidents (96 dispensing related, two administration, two other), general practitioner (GP) practices filed 22 reports and 16 reports originated from other sources. A total of 99 dispensing-related incidents were recorded, 39 resulted from the wrong medication dispensed, 31 the wrong strength, 8 the wrong quantity and 21 other. A total of 128 contributory factors were identified overall; for dispensing incidents, the most common related to medication storage/packaging (
conclusionDespite the established link between medication packaging and the risk of dispensing errors, our study highlighted storage and packaging as the most commonly described contributory factors to dispensing errors. The absence of certain relevant data limited the ability to fully characterise a number of reports. This highlighted the need to include clear and complete information when submitting reports. This, in turn, may help to better inform the further development of interventions designed to reduce the risk of incidents and improve 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.