ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2025
Prevalence and types of medication errors in pro re nata medication orders among hospitalized patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication errors in Pro Re Nata (PRN) prescriptions pose a significant threat in hospital settings, especially due to unclear prescribing practices. Despite growing attention to patient safety, documentation for PRN orders remains poor, increasing the risk of medication errors and adverse drug events. To assess the prevalence and types of PRN medication errors in hospitalized patients, identify high-risk drugs, and explore factors linked to prescribing errors.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 at an Educational and Research Hospital. It included 400 hospitalized patients who had received at least one PRN prescription. Data were collected using a standardized extraction form based on clinical guidelines and expert consultation. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to evaluate error trends and associated risk factors.
resultsA total of 74.1% of PRN prescriptions lacked a documented indication, and 91.1% had no recorded dosage interval. Pethidine (32.6%) was the most frequently prescribed PRN medication. The Surgical ICU showed a significantly higher number of errors (p < 0.05). Major predictors of PRN errors included missing dosage intervals and admission to high-dependency wards.
conclusionsThe high frequency of PRN prescribing errors underscores the urgent need for improved documentation and targeted training. Structured interventions such as electronic prescribing and focused medical education can help reduce errors and improve patient safety. Structured interventions such as electronic prescribing, regulatory enforcement, and focused medical education can help reduce errors and improve 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.