ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Prescribing errors among adult patients in a large tertiary care system in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medication Errors in Saudi Arabian Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of electronic prescription system modifications on reducing prescribing errors in a military hospital.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- The Prevalence of High-Risk Prescribing of Oral Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Primary Healthcare: A Single-Centre Retrospective Chart Review Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple studies have investigated medication errors in hospitals in Saudi Arabia; however, prevalence data on prescribing errors and associated factors remains uncertain.
objectiveAssess the prevalence, type, severity, and factors associated with prescribing errors.
designRetrospective database review.
settingLarge tertiary care setting in Riyadh. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe described and analyzed data related to prescribing errors in adults (>14 years of age) from the Medication Error Electronic Report Forms database for the two-year period from January 2017 to December 2018.
main outcome measureThe prevalence of prescribing errors and associated factors among adult patients. SAMPLE SIZE: 315 166 prescriptions screened.
resultsOf the total number of inpatient and outpatient prescriptions screened, 4934 prescribing errors were identified for a prevalence of 1.56%. The most prevalent types of prescribing errors were improper dose (n=1516; 30.7%) and frequency (n=987; 20.0%). Two-thirds of prescribing errors did not cause any harm to patients. Most prescribing errors were made by medical residents (n=2577; 52%) followed by specialists (n=1629; 33%). Prescribing errors were associated with a lack of documenting clinical information (adjusted odds ratio: 14.1; 95% CI 7.7-16.8,
conclusionInadequate documentation in electronic health records and prescribing of anti-infective medications were the most common factors for predicting prescribing errors. Future studies should focus on testing innovative measures to control these factors and their impact on minimizing prescribing errors. LIMITATIONS: Polypharmacy was not considered; the data are from a single healthcare system. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.
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.