Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37441317›Full record

ReviewIntegrated healthcare journal2020

Prescribing error reporting in primary care: a narrative synthesis systematic review.

Kathryn Bullen, Nicola Hall, John Sherwood, Nicola Wake, Gemma Donovan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrated healthcare journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of structured medication reviews on prescribing in English primary care: a retrospective observational cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Kathryn BullenSchool of Pharmacy, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2675-2561
Nicola HallSchool of Pharmacy, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, UK.
John SherwoodSchool of Pharmacy, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Nicola WakePharmacy Department, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Gemma DonovanSchool of Pharmacy, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribing errors can cause avoidable harm to patients. Most prescriptions originate in primary care, where medications tend to be self-administered and errors have the most potential to cause harm. Reporting prescribing errors can identify trends and reduce the risk of the reoccurrence of incidents; however, under-reporting is common. The organisation of care and the movement of prescriptions from general practice to community pharmacy may create difficulties for professionals to effectively report errors. This review aims specifically to identify primary research studies that examine barriers and facilitators to prescription error reporting across primary care. A systematic research of the literature was completed in July 2019. Four databases (PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL and Web of Science) were searched for relevant studies. No date or language limits were applied. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and data were descriptively and narratively synthesised. Ten articles were included in the final analysis. Seven studies considered prescription errors and error reporting within general practice and three within a community pharmacy setting. Findings from the included studies are presented across five themes, including definition of an error, prescribing error reporting culture, reporting processes, communication and capacity. Healthcare professionals appreciate the value of prescription error reporting, but there are key barriers to implementation, including time, fear of reprisal and organisation separation within primary care.

Indexed as

general practiceincident reportingpharmacistsprimary care

Identifiers

PMID37441317
PMCPMC10327455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.