Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35523432›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2022

The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review.

Nde-Eshimuni Salema, Brian G Bell, Kate Marsden, Gill Gookey, Glen Swanwick, Mindy Bassi, Rajnikant Mehta, Nick Silcock, Anthony J Avery, Richard Knox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nde-Eshimuni SalemaDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0981-7661
Brian G BellDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK brian.bell@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8577-7430
Kate MarsdenDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Gill GookeyNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7137-2248
Glen SwanwickDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mindy BassiNHS Nottingham City PCT, Nottingham, UK.
Rajnikant MehtaBirmingham Acute Care Research/Institute of Applied Health Research (BCTU), Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5341-5598
Nick SilcockNHS Nottingham City PCT, Wollaton Park Medical Practice, Nottingham, UK.
Anthony J AveryDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7591-4438
Richard KnoxDivision of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-7352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrescribing errors can cause significant morbidity and occur in about 5% of prescriptions in English general practices.

aimTo describe the frequency and nature of prescribing problems in a cohort of GPs-in-training to determine whether they need additional prescribing support. DESIGN &

settingA primary care pharmacist undertook a retrospective review of prescriptions issued between 9 October 2014 and 11 March 2015 by 10 GPs in their final year of training from 10 practices in England.

methodPre-existing standards and expert panel discussion were used to classify the appropriateness of prescribing. Data were imported into Stata (version 13) to perform descriptive analysis. An individualised report highlighting prescribing errors, suboptimal prescribing, and areas of good practice identified during the review was shared with the GPs-in-training and their trainers. This report was used to guide discussions during the GP-in-training's feedback session.

resultsA total of 1028 prescription items were reviewed from 643 consultations performed by 10 GPs-in-training. There were 92 prescribing errors (8.9%) and 360 episodes of suboptimal prescribing (35.0%). The most common types of error concerned medication dosages (

conclusionPersonalised review of prescribing revealed an error rate higher than recorded in a previous similar study mainly comprising GPs who had completed postgraduate training, and a substantially higher rate of suboptimal prescribing. A larger intervention study is now required to evaluate the effectiveness of receiving a personalised review of prescribing, and to assess its impact on patient safety.

Indexed as

family medicinegeneral practicepatient safetyprescribingprescriptions

Identifiers

PMID35523432
PMCPMC9680734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.