ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2022
A nationwide assessment of community pharmacists' attitudes towards dispensing errors: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing community pharmacists' practices and strategies to minimize medication dispensing errors: a Jordanian study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Detection and Prevention of Medication Errors by the Network of Sentinel Pharmacies in a Southern European Region.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Assessing the pharmaceutical care provision to suspected COVID-19 patients in community pharmacies: a simulated patient study.BMC health services research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Dispensing errors (DEs) are common causes of preventable harm to patients. Interestingly, very little is known about their prevalence and types in the community pharmacy setting in Lebanon due to the lack of an effective reporting system. Therefore, this study aims to explore the perceptions of community pharmacists about the types of these errors in Lebanon, the factors behind their occurrence, the reasons for underreporting, and the current practices for reducing them. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted through a self-administered questionnaire, using a scale of 0-4, distributed among a sample of community pharmacists in Lebanon. Results: A total of 171 pharmacists responded to the survey, of whom 68% reported that DEs were common, and 52% believed that they were increasing. The main reported contributing factors to DEs were unreadable and incomplete prescriptions (≈3.0 ± 1.0 out of 5), workload, multitasking, interruptions, similarity in names of medications, and fatigue (≈2.5 ± 1.0). Moreover, the perceived strategies to limit the risks of DEs were collaboration with physicians, improving handwriting, double-checking, proper patient counselling, encouraging reporting, and issuance of guidelines (≈3.2 ± 1.0). Finally, the main reasons for underreporting DEs were the lack of obligation to report and the lack of reporting systems (59% and 56%, respectively). Conclusions: DEs may be very prevalent in Lebanon because they are unmonitored by the authorities. Electronic prescription and fair reporting systems are highly recommended, along with follow-up studies.
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.