PURPOSE: To assess the main differences in clinical significance of the prescribing errors intercepted by clinical pharmacists in paediatrics and obstetrics and the reasons for these prescribing errors, as well as the differences in pharmacists' activity indicators. METHODS: The was a cross-sectional epidemiological study analysing the activities of paediatric pharmacists in a maternity and children's hospital with 180 paediatric beds and 138 obstetrics and gynaecology beds between January 2007 and December 2009. The following variables were analysed: clinical significance of prescribing errors intercepted, reason for the error, impact of the intervention by pharmacist, acceptance rate of the recommendation made, medication involved, intervention detection date and observations. RESULTS: A total of 2,449 interventions in medical orders were recorded. Interventions that were not accepted by doctors were excluded, leaving 43 cases (2.1%) of extremely significant interventions and 170 (8.4%) very significant interventions. Interventions in what were deemed to be error-free situations were excluded. Significance testing (based on 2,035 errors detected) showed that 1.7% of the detected errors were potentially lethal (35 cases), while 10.2% (210 cases) were clinically serious. The main reason for the interventions was the detection of a dosage between 1.5- and tenfold higher than the recommended dosage. The overall rate of acceptance of the pharmacist's suggestions was 92.2%. Pharmacists carried out an average of 0.016 interventions/patient-day throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric patients had a fourfold higher risk of serious errors than the maternity population. Pharmacist intervention had a major impact on reducing prescribing errors in the study period, thus improving the quality and efficiency of care provided.
PURPOSE: To assess the main differences in clinical significance of the prescribing errors intercepted by clinical pharmacists in paediatrics and obstetrics and the reasons for these prescribing errors, as well as the differences in pharmacists' activity indicators. METHODS: The was a cross-sectional epidemiological study analysing the activities of paediatric pharmacists in a maternity and children's hospital with 180 paediatric beds and 138 obstetrics and gynaecology beds between January 2007 and December 2009. The following variables were analysed: clinical significance of prescribing errors intercepted, reason for the error, impact of the intervention by pharmacist, acceptance rate of the recommendation made, medication involved, intervention detection date and observations. RESULTS: A total of 2,449 interventions in medical orders were recorded. Interventions that were not accepted by doctors were excluded, leaving 43 cases (2.1%) of extremely significant interventions and 170 (8.4%) very significant interventions. Interventions in what were deemed to be error-free situations were excluded. Significance testing (based on 2,035 errors detected) showed that 1.7% of the detected errors were potentially lethal (35 cases), while 10.2% (210 cases) were clinically serious. The main reason for the interventions was the detection of a dosage between 1.5- and tenfold higher than the recommended dosage. The overall rate of acceptance of the pharmacist's suggestions was 92.2%. Pharmacists carried out an average of 0.016 interventions/patient-day throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric patients had a fourfold higher risk of serious errors than the maternity population. Pharmacist intervention had a major impact on reducing prescribing errors in the study period, thus improving the quality and efficiency of care provided.
Authors: L Echarri-Martínez; C M Fernández-Llamazares; J López-Herce; A Sánchez-Galindo; S Manrique-Rodríguez; M Sanjurjo-Sáez Journal: Farm Hosp Date: 2011-10-26
Authors: Maisoon Abdullah Ghaleb; Nick Barber; Bryony D Franklin; Vincent W S Yeung; Zahra F Khaki; Ian C K Wong Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Marieke M Beex-Oosterhuis; Ed M de Vogel; Heleen van der Sijs; Hetty G Dieleman; Patricia M L A van den Bemt Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2013-09-24
Authors: Kay Seden; Jamie J Kirkham; Tom Kennedy; Michael Lloyd; Sally James; Aine McManus; Andrew Ritchings; Jennifer Simpson; Dave Thornton; Andrea Gill; Carolyn Coleman; Bethan Thorpe; Saye H Khoo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 2.692