BACKGROUND: The use of error-prone abbreviations has led to medication errors. Many safety organisations have introduced 'Do Not Use' lists (lists of error-prone abbreviations that should be avoided by prescribers), but the effectiveness of these lists have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness of the 'Do Not Use' list introduced to the study hospital, and sought the attitudes of healthcare professionals on other potentially dangerous abbreviations (not included in the 'Do Not Use' list) used in prescriptions. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university affiliated tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. METHODS: An uncontrolled observational study was conducted. In-patient prescriptions were reviewed to assess the use of error-prone abbreviations included in the 'Do Not Use' list before, after its introduction, and following the first reinforcement. An on-line survey was also conducted among prescribers, pharmacists and nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rate of using error-prone abbreviations and other unapproved abbreviations among reviewed prescriptions. RESULTS: 3,238 prescriptions (23,398 drug items) were reviewed. The use of abbreviations in the 'Do Not Use' list decreased from 7.8 to 3.3 % after its introduction (P < 0.001) and to 1.3 % after the first reinforcement (P < 0.001). However, unapproved abbreviations were used to denote prescribing instructions in 19.2 % of the drugs prescribed. 49 different types of unapproved abbreviations were used for drug names. CONCLUSIONS: A 'Do Not Use' list is effective in reducing error-prone abbreviations. Reinforcements of the 'Do Not Use' list further improves prescriber adherence. However, many other unapproved abbreviations (not included in current 'Do Not Use' lists) are used when prescribing. Periodic reminders on error-prone abbreviations and education of prescribers on associated risks may help to reduce the use of error-prone abbreviations in hospitals.
BACKGROUND: The use of error-prone abbreviations has led to medication errors. Many safety organisations have introduced 'Do Not Use' lists (lists of error-prone abbreviations that should be avoided by prescribers), but the effectiveness of these lists have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the effectiveness of the 'Do Not Use' list introduced to the study hospital, and sought the attitudes of healthcare professionals on other potentially dangerous abbreviations (not included in the 'Do Not Use' list) used in prescriptions. SETTING: The study was conducted in a university affiliated tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. METHODS: An uncontrolled observational study was conducted. In-patient prescriptions were reviewed to assess the use of error-prone abbreviations included in the 'Do Not Use' list before, after its introduction, and following the first reinforcement. An on-line survey was also conducted among prescribers, pharmacists and nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rate of using error-prone abbreviations and other unapproved abbreviations among reviewed prescriptions. RESULTS: 3,238 prescriptions (23,398 drug items) were reviewed. The use of abbreviations in the 'Do Not Use' list decreased from 7.8 to 3.3 % after its introduction (P < 0.001) and to 1.3 % after the first reinforcement (P < 0.001). However, unapproved abbreviations were used to denote prescribing instructions in 19.2 % of the drugs prescribed. 49 different types of unapproved abbreviations were used for drug names. CONCLUSIONS: A 'Do Not Use' list is effective in reducing error-prone abbreviations. Reinforcements of the 'Do Not Use' list further improves prescriber adherence. However, many other unapproved abbreviations (not included in current 'Do Not Use' lists) are used when prescribing. Periodic reminders on error-prone abbreviations and education of prescribers on associated risks may help to reduce the use of error-prone abbreviations in hospitals.
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
Authors: Mohammed E Abushaiqa; Frank K Zaran; David S Bach; Richard T Smolarek; Margo S Farber Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Eva S Klappe; Florentien J P van Putten; Nicolette F de Keizer; Ronald Cornet Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 2.796