Literature DB >> 21404121

Analysis of the quality of prescriptions at a cardiovascular ward in Brazil: a pilot study.

J S Siqueira1, A R Antoniolli, C C Silvestre, A D Oliveira-Filho, W B Silva, D P Lyra.   

Abstract

AIM OF STUDY: To analyze the quality of prescriptions in a hospital in Brazil.
METHODS: A cross-sectional pilot study of the quality of prescriptions of adult patients admitted at the cardiovascular ward. Data were collected with the help of a structured form developed by the researchers based on related literature, with items about medications and completeness of prescriptions. The form was divided into four categories of prescription quality indicators: prescription type, legibility and readability of handwriting, and completeness. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES 100 patients participated in the study, with ages between 20 and 94 years (mean of 67.12 ± 16.6 years), We analyzed 5,030 on 496 prescriptions for 100 patients. Of 11% the handwriting was considered to be less legible and 17% considered illegible. In terms of readability, a high incidence of medications were prescribed by their brand names (89%), and 13,707 abbreviations (mean of 27.6 per prescription) were used mainly to refer to the route of administration (31%), concentration (27%), and indications for use (20%). In relation to completeness, 471 (95%) prescriptions were considered incomplete, mainly medication data.
CONCLUSION: The quality indicators used in this study revealed a high rate of prescription problems and errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21404121     DOI: 10.1007/s11096-011-9491-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm


  11 in total

1.  The development of prescribing incentive schemes in primary care: a longitudinal survey.

Authors:  Mark Ashworth; Robert Lea; Heather Gray; Hugh Gravelle; Azeem Majeed
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Perception of drug-name legibility by pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

Authors:  Amanda G Kennedy; John W Senders; Kate Sellen; Benjamin Littenberg; Peter W Callas; Jan K Carney
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 2.637

3.  [Errors in hospital prescriptions of high-alert medications].

Authors:  Mário Borges Rosa; Edson Perini; Tânia Azevedo Anacleto; Hessem Miranda Neiva; Tânia Bogutchi
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 2.106

4.  Reducing medication prescribing errors in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  Jane Garbutt; Paul E Milligan; Candace McNaughton; Gabrielle Highstein; Brian M Waterman; W Claiborne Dunagan; Victoria J Fraser
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2008-09

5.  Medication errors: prescribing faults and prescription errors.

Authors:  Giampaolo P Velo; Pietro Minuz
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Drug-drug and drug-disease interactions in the ED: analysis of a high-risk population.

Authors:  R M Goldberg; J Mabee; L Chan; S Wong
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.469

Review 7.  Systematic overview of warfarin and its drug and food interactions.

Authors:  Anne M Holbrook; Jennifer A Pereira; Renee Labiris; Heather McDonald; James D Douketis; Mark Crowther; Philip S Wells
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-05-23

Review 8.  Dangerous abbreviations: "U" can make a difference!

Authors:  Christine Koczmara; Valentina Jelincic; Carol Dueck
Journal:  Dynamics       Date:  2005

9.  Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities.

Authors:  Kenneth N Barker; Elizabeth A Flynn; Ginette A Pepper; David W Bates; Robert L Mikeal
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-09

10.  Effect of drug utilization reviews on the quality of in-hospital prescribing: a quasi-experimental study.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Grégoire; Jocelyne Moisan; Louise Potvin; Isabelle Chabot; René Verreault; Alain Milot
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-03-14       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.