BACKGROUND: Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking. AIM: To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator. DESIGN AND SETTING: RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice. METHOD: Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach. RESULTS: Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7-9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug-drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants. CONCLUSION: This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.
BACKGROUND: Medication error is an important contributor to patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with inadequate patient safety measures. However, prescribing-safety tools specifically designed for use in general practice are lacking. AIM: To identify and update a set of prescribing-safety indicators for assessing the safety of prescribing in general practice, and to estimate the risk of harm to patients associated with each indicator. DESIGN AND SETTING: RAND/UCLA consensus development of indicators in UK general practice. METHOD: Prescribing indicators were identified from a systematic review and previous consensus exercise. The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to further identify and develop the indicators with an electronic-Delphi method used to rate the risk associated with them. Twelve GPs from all the countries of the UK participated in the RAND exercise, with 11 GPs rating risk using the electronic-Delphi approach. RESULTS: Fifty-six prescribing-safety indicators were considered appropriate for inclusion (overall panel median rating of 7-9, with agreement). These indicators cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic indications, hazardous drug-drug combinations and inadequate laboratory test monitoring. Twenty-three (41%) of these indicators were considered high risk or extreme risk by 80% or more of the participants. CONCLUSION: This study identified a set of 56 indicators that were considered, by a panel of GPs, to be appropriate for assessing the safety of GP prescribing. Twenty-three of these indicators were considered to be associated with high or extreme risk to patients and should be the focus of efforts to improve patient safety.
Entities:
Keywords:
ambulatory care; consensus; general practice; medication errors; patient safety; primary health care; quality indicators
Authors: Chunliu Zhan; Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo; Arlene S Bierman; Judy Sangl; Marlene R Miller; Stephen W Wickizer; Daniel Stryer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarah K Thomas; Sarah E McDowell; James Hodson; Ugochi Nwulu; Rachel L Howard; Anthony J Avery; Ann Slee; Jamie J Coleman Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Anthony J Avery; Sarah Rodgers; Bryony Dean Franklin; Rachel A Elliott; Rachel Howard; Sarah P Slight; Glen Swanwick; Richard Knox; Gill Gookey; Nick Barber; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Sean MacBride-Stewart; Charis Marwick; Neil Houston; Iain Watt; Andrea Patton; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Artur Akbarov; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Matthew Sperrin; Susan J Stocks; Richard Williams; Sarah Rodgers; Anthony Avery; Iain Buchan; Darren M Ashcroft Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Bruce Guthrie; Peter T Donnan; Douglas J Murphy; Boikanyo Makubate; Tobias Dreischulte Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bruce Guthrie; Kimberley Kavanagh; Chris Robertson; Karen Barnett; Shaun Treweek; Dennis Petrie; Lewis Ritchie; Marion Bennie Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-08-18