AIMS: To develop a list of prescribing indicators specific for the hospital setting that would facilitate the prospective collection of high-severity and/or high-frequency prescribing errors, which are also amenable to electronic clinical decision support. METHODS: A two-stage consensus technique (electronic Delphi) was carried out with 20 experts across England. Participants were asked to score prescribing errors using a five-point Likert scale for their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the most likely outcome. These were combined to produce risk scores, from which median scores were calculated for each indicator across the participants in the study. The degree of consensus between the participants was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or more was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 80 prescribing errors were identified by consensus as being high or extreme risk. The most common drug classes named within the indicators were antibiotics (n = 13), antidepressants (n = 8), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 6) and opioid analgesics (n = 6). The most frequent error type identified as high or extreme risk were those classified as clinical contraindications (n = 29 of 80). CONCLUSIONS: Eighty high-risk prescribing errors in the hospital setting have been identified by an expert panel. These indicators can serve as a standardized, validated tool for the collection of prescribing data in both paper-based and electronic prescribing processes. This can assess the impact of safety improvement initiatives, such as the implementation of electronic clinical decision support.
AIMS: To develop a list of prescribing indicators specific for the hospital setting that would facilitate the prospective collection of high-severity and/or high-frequency prescribing errors, which are also amenable to electronic clinical decision support. METHODS: A two-stage consensus technique (electronic Delphi) was carried out with 20 experts across England. Participants were asked to score prescribing errors using a five-point Likert scale for their likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the most likely outcome. These were combined to produce risk scores, from which median scores were calculated for each indicator across the participants in the study. The degree of consensus between the participants was defined as the proportion that gave a risk score in the same category as the median. Indicators were included if a consensus of 80% or more was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 80 prescribing errors were identified by consensus as being high or extreme risk. The most common drug classes named within the indicators were antibiotics (n = 13), antidepressants (n = 8), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 6) and opioid analgesics (n = 6). The most frequent error type identified as high or extreme risk were those classified as clinical contraindications (n = 29 of 80). CONCLUSIONS: Eighty high-risk prescribing errors in the hospital setting have been identified by an expert panel. These indicators can serve as a standardized, validated tool for the collection of prescribing data in both paper-based and electronic prescribing processes. This can assess the impact of safety improvement initiatives, such as the implementation of electronic clinical decision support.
Authors: Shobha Phansalkar; Amrita A Desai; Douglas Bell; Eileen Yoshida; John Doole; Melissa Czochanski; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: P M Mertes; A Bazin; F Alla; J Bienvenu; C Caldani; B Lamy; D Laroche; M F Leconte des Floris; J-Y Py; D Rebibo; B Willaert; P Demoly Journal: J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol Date: 2011 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Jennings; Alain Mayhew; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Daniel Riedmann; Martin Jung; Werner O Hackl; Wolf Stühlinger; Heleen van der Sijs; Elske Ammenwerth Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Sallie-Anne Pearson; Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; James Reeve; David Newby Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Wael Y Khawagi; Douglas Steinke; Matthew J Carr; Alison K Wright; Darren M Ashcroft; Anthony Avery; Richard Neil Keers Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Veronika J Wirtz; Hans V Hogerzeil; Andrew L Gray; Maryam Bigdeli; Cornelis P de Joncheere; Margaret A Ewen; Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt; Sun Jing; Vera L Luiza; Regina M Mbindyo; Helene Möller; Corrina Moucheraud; Bernard Pécoul; Lembit Rägo; Arash Rashidian; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Peter N Stephens; Yot Teerawattananon; Ellen F M 't Hoen; Anita K Wagner; Prashant Yadav; Michael R Reich Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aziz Sheikh; Neelam Dhingra-Kumar; Edward Kelley; Marie Paule Kieny; Liam J Donaldson Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Sarah K Pontefract; James Hodson; Ann Slee; Sonal Shah; Alan J Girling; Robin Williams; Aziz Sheikh; Jamie J Coleman Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Richard J Lilford; Alan J Girling; Aziz Sheikh; Jamie J Coleman; Peter J Chilton; Samantha L Burn; David J Jenkinson; Laurence Blake; Karla Hemming Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Frances S Grudzinska; Davinder Ps Dosanjh; Dhruv Parekh; Rachel Ca Dancer; Jaimin Patel; Peter Nightingale; Georgia M Walton; Elizabeth Sapey; David R Thickett Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.659