ArticleBMC primary care2024
Prescription writing pattern among the dental practitioners of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the frequency and types of prescription errors, assess adherence to WHO prescribing indicators, and highlight the gaps in current prescribing practices of Junior dental practitioners in a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2021 to March 2021. The study included the prescriptions by house surgeons and junior postgraduate medical trainees for walk-in patients visiting the dental outpatient department. A total of 466 prescriptions were evaluated for WHO core drug prescribing indicators. The prescription error parameters were prepared by studying the WHO practical manual on guide to good prescribing and previous studies. Prescription errors, including errors of omission related to the physician and the patients, along with errors of omission related to the drug, were also noted. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 25. Descriptive analysis was performed for qualitative variables in the study.
resultsThe average number of drugs per encounter was found to be 3.378 drugs per prescription. The percentage of encounters with antibiotics was 96.99%. Strikingly, only 16.95% of the drugs were prescribed by generic names and 23.55% of drugs belonged to the essential drug list. The majority lacked valuable information related to the prescriber, patient, and drugs. Such as contact details 419 (89.9%), date 261 (56%), medical license number 466 (100%), diagnosis 409 (87.8%), age and address of patient 453 (97.2%), form and route of drug 14 (3%), missing drug strength 69 (14.8%), missing frequency 126 (27%) and duration of treatment 72 (15.4%). Moreover, the wrong drug dosage was prescribed by 89 (19%) prescribers followed by the wrong drug in 52 (11.1%), wrong strength in 43 (9.2%) and wrong form in 9 (1.9%). Out of 1575 medicines prescribed in 466 prescriptions, 426 (27.04%) drug interactions were found and 299 (64%) had illegible handwriting.
conclusionThe study revealed that the prescription writing practices among junior dental practitioners are below optimum standards. The average number of drugs per encounter was high, with a significant percentage of encounters involving antibiotics. However, a low percentage of drugs were prescribed by generic name and from the essential drug list. Numerous prescription errors, both omissions and commissions, were identified, highlighting the need for improved training and adherence to WHO guidelines on good prescribing practices. Implementing targeted educational programs and stricter regulatory measures could enhance the quality of prescriptions and overall patient safety.
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.