ArticlePediatrics2022
Reducing Pediatric Emergency Department Prescription Errors.
Article in Pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of prescription errors in paediatric care.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Cyclical medication management interventions in health care settings: A systematic review.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrescription errors are a significant cause of iatrogenic harm in the health care system. Pediatric emergency department (ED) patients are particularly vulnerable to error. We sought to decrease prescription errors in an academic pediatric ED by 20% over a 24-month period by implementing identified national best practice guidelines.
methodsFrom 2017 to 2019, a multidisciplinary, fellow-driven quality improvement (QI) project was conducted using the Model for Improvement. Four key drivers were identified including simplifying the electronic order entry into prescription folders, improving knowledge of dosing by indication, increasing error feedback to prescribers, and creating awareness of common prescription pitfalls. Four interventions were subsequently implemented. Outcome measures included prescription errors per 1000 prescriptions written for all medications and top 10 error-prone antibiotics. Process measures included provider awareness and use of prescription folders; the balancing measure was provider satisfaction. Differences in outcome measures were assessed by statistical process control methodology. Process and balancing measures were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and χ2 testing.
resultsBefore our interventions, 8.6 errors per 1000 prescriptions written were identified, with 62% of errors from the top 10 most error-prone antibiotics. After interventions, error rate per 1000 prescriptions decreased from 8.6 to 4.5 overall and from 20.1 to 8.8 for top 10 error-prone antibiotics. Provider awareness of prescription folders was significantly increased.
conclusionQI efforts to implement previously defined best practices, including simplifying and standardizing computerized provider order entry (CPOE), significantly reduced prescription errors. Synergistic effect of educational and technological efforts likely contributed to the measured improvement.
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.