ArticleSAGE open medicine2024
Refining patient care: Evaluating prescription practices of medical residents and interns in a teaching hospital through an audit.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hospitals in India use the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers guidelines as criteria to ensure safe prescribing practices. This audit was conducted to provide insight into in-patient prescription of drugs to (1) evaluate the quality of prescriptions (2) reduce prescription and medication errors (3) improve the quality of care in terms of prescriptions that the hospital provides to the patient. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted in an in-patient department of a tertiary care teaching hospital in Chennai where 153 paper-based prescriptions were continuously collected from the internal medicine department over 1 month. The prescriptions were evaluated on 13 parameters that is, patient details (including name, age, sex and Hospital unique ID), height and weight, allergies, capital letters, legibility, date and time of prescription, medicine prescribed by generic name, brand name or both, dosage, route of administration, frequency, relation with food, stop order and signature of the doctor. The data obtained was summarised and analysed using Google Sheets. Results: A total of 153 prescriptions from the in-patient department of a tertiary care teaching hospital were audited. Out of the 153 prescriptions and 13 parameters assessed, patient details (including name, age, sex and Hospital unique ID), legibility, route of administration and frequency were found in all of the prescriptions. On further analysis, we found that only 12.26% of the prescriptions were compliant with the components of the stop order. The majority of the prescriptions (69.28%) contained both generic and trade names. Conclusion: Prescriptions are the most common areas of errors. This study shows the form of errors that can arise while prescribing medications. Doctors must be adequately trained to write prescriptions and follow the standards set by the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers. Audits need to be conducted regularly to ensure and improve the quality of prescriptions.
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.