ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022
How would final-year medical students perform if their skill-based prescription assessment was real life?
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment and evaluation of prescribing competences: A systematic review and recommendations.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Differences in prescribing errors between electronic prescribing and traditional prescribing among medical students: A randomized pilot study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Trial
- Prescribing competence: The pros and cons of different methods for assessment.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Does formative assessment help students to acquire prescribing skills?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- How would final-year medical students perform if their skill-based prescription assessment was real life?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- The education and training of medical students in electronic prescribing.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 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
aimsPrescribing errors occur frequently, especially among junior doctors. Our aim was to investigate prescribing errors made by final-year medical students. Information on these errors can help to improve education on and assessment of clinical pharmacotherapy (CPT).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study amongst final-year medical students at Erasmus Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Errors made in the final prescribing assessment were analysed. Errors were categorized by type, possible consequence and possibility of reaching the patient in real life.
resultsA total of 381 students wrote 1502 analysable prescriptions. Forty per cent of these contained at least one error, and 54% of errors were of the inadequate information type. The rating of prescriptions for children was lower than for other question categories (P = <.001). Fifty per cent of errors were classified as "would have reached the patient but would not have had the potential to cause harm". In total, 253 (29%) errors would not have been intercepted by an electronic prescribing system or a pharmacist. Ten (4%) of these would probably have caused harm in the patient.
conclusionsThere is a high rate of errors in prescriptions written by final-year medical students. Most errors were of the inadequate information type, indicating that students had difficulties determining the content and amount of information needed to make treatment successful. Prescriptions for children contained most errors. Curricula could be improved by offering more case-based CPT education, focusing on the practical issues of prescribing, especially for paediatric cases, and offering more practice time for prescribing during clerkships.
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.