J S Thomas1, D Gillard2, M Khor2, P Hakendorf2, C H Thompson2. 1. From the School of Medicine, University of Adelaide South Australia, 5000, Pharmacy Department, Level 2 East Wing, Royal Adelaide Hospital, 50 North Tce, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia, Flinders Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia. Josephine.thomas@health.sa.gov.au. 2. From the School of Medicine, University of Adelaide South Australia, 5000, Pharmacy Department, Level 2 East Wing, Royal Adelaide Hospital, 50 North Tce, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia, Flinders Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042 and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prescribing is a complex task with potential for many types of error to occur. Despite the introduction of a standard national medication chart for Australian hospital inpatients in 2006, simple prescribing errors are common. AIM: To compare the effect of quality improvement initiatives on the rate of simple prescribing errors. DESIGN: A prospective, multisite comparison of prescribing education interventions. METHODS: Using three hospital sites, we compared site-specific changes in prescribing error rates following use of an online education module alone (low intensity) with prescribing error rates following a high-intensity intervention (comprising the same online education module plus nurse education and academic detailing of junior prescribers). The study period was 4 months between May and August 2011. RESULTS: Full completion of the adverse drug reactions field did not improve after either intervention; however, there was better documentation of some elements following high-intensity intervention. Prescriber performance improved significantly for more elements in the regular prescription category than any other category of prescription. Legibility of medication name improved across all categories following interventions. Clarity of frequency, prescriber name and documentation of indication improved following both high- and low-intensity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements were seen in several prescription elements after the intervention but the majority of elements that improved were affected by both low- and high-intensity interventions. Despite targeted intervention, significant rates of prescribing breaches persisted. The prevalence of prescription breaches partially responds to an online education module. The nature of any additional intervention that would be effective is unclear.
BACKGROUND: Prescribing is a complex task with potential for many types of error to occur. Despite the introduction of a standard national medication chart for Australian hospital inpatients in 2006, simple prescribing errors are common. AIM: To compare the effect of quality improvement initiatives on the rate of simple prescribing errors. DESIGN: A prospective, multisite comparison of prescribing education interventions. METHODS: Using three hospital sites, we compared site-specific changes in prescribing error rates following use of an online education module alone (low intensity) with prescribing error rates following a high-intensity intervention (comprising the same online education module plus nurse education and academic detailing of junior prescribers). The study period was 4 months between May and August 2011. RESULTS: Full completion of the adverse drug reactions field did not improve after either intervention; however, there was better documentation of some elements following high-intensity intervention. Prescriber performance improved significantly for more elements in the regular prescription category than any other category of prescription. Legibility of medication name improved across all categories following interventions. Clarity of frequency, prescriber name and documentation of indication improved following both high- and low-intensity intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements were seen in several prescription elements after the intervention but the majority of elements that improved were affected by both low- and high-intensity interventions. Despite targeted intervention, significant rates of prescribing breaches persisted. The prevalence of prescription breaches partially responds to an online education module. The nature of any additional intervention that would be effective is unclear.
Authors: Sheena Elizabeth Geoghegan; Eric Clarke; Dara Byrne; Dermot Power; Daragh Moneley; Judith Strawbridge; David James Williams Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Peter A G M de Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Wietske Kievit; Johan L W Pot; J Elsbeth Nagtegaal; André Wieringa; Monique M L van der Westerlaken; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Peter A G M de Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Michiel J Bakkum; Jelle Tichelaar; Anne Wellink; Milan C Richir; Michiel A van Agtmael Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michael Patrick O'Shea; Cormac Kennedy; Eileen Relihan; Kieran Harkin; Martina Hennessy; Michael Barry Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.796