ArticleBMJ open2026
Medication errors in practice: A mixed-methods study from Diwan Polyclinic-Muscat.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore healthcare professionals' experiences with medication errors (MEs) in terms of types and factors that contribute to them.
designA mixed-methods study was conducted to explore the MEs experiences of healthcare professionals. Quantitative data were collected through a cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire, whereas qualitative data were collected via face-to-face semi-structured interviews.
settingThe study was conducted at Diwan Polyclinic in Muscat, a primary and secondary healthcare institute.
participantsThe study population included healthcare workers who were practising (not retired) and actively involved in patient care and the medication-use cycle, either by prescribing, dispensing or administering medication. The total number of participants was 83 (55 females and 28 males) healthcare professionals, comprising doctors (38), nurses (32), pharmacists and assistant pharmacists (13). Omani participants accounted for 72%, whereas non-Omani participants accounted for 28%. Six of 83 healthcare professionals were purposefully selected to provide additional qualitative insights into their experiences with MEs and the measures they use to reduce them.
interventionsNone. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes focused on identifying types, causes and effects of MEs, and the secondary outcomes aimed to explore the emotional and professional implications on healthcare workers as well as suggested strategies to minimise MEs.
resultsA total of 83 participants (55 females and 28 males) were included, with 72% Omani and 28% non-Omani. Of these, 44 participants (53%) encountered MEs during their practice at Diwan Polyclinic. The most common type of MEs was prescribing errors (51%), followed by dispensing errors (39%) and administering errors (10%). Incorrect dosing was the most typical cause of prescribing errors.In the qualitative part of the study, the interviewed participants implemented these measures to reduce MEs: 1) double-checking the prescribed medicines, patients 'names and identity before dispensing and administering drugs, 2) patient education on polypharmacy and 3) alerting prescribing doctors to errors in their prescriptions or orders. Several measures have been suggested to mitigate MEs, including better communication among health professionals and between them and patients, focusing on staff well-being and development and innovative built-in modules and programmes in electronic medical records for drug verification.
conclusionThe most common type of MEs was prescribing errors. Focusing on better communication and staff well-being, as well as the innovative development of electronic medical records, will help minimise MEs.
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.