Jacqueline M Bos1, Patricia M L A van den Bemt2, Peter A G M de Smet3, Cornelis Kramers1,4. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. Departement of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: Educating prescribers is a strategy to reduce prescription errors in hospitals. The present systematic review gives an overview of original research papers on the education of prescribers and reporting outcomes on (potential) patient harm. METHODS: A search of the databases Embase and Medline, using the Ovid interface, was performed. Research on the effect of physician education in order to prevent medication-related problems in inpatients, and on reporting original data and outcomes on prescribing errors and/or (potential) patient harm, was included. The assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized studies (MINORS) checklist and the suggested risk of bias criteria for Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) reviews. RESULTS: Eight studies investigated an intervention on education alone, and in seven studies education was the main part of a multifaceted intervention. All studies were small and had short follow-up periods. The educational programmes varied and were given to physicians of different specialties and levels of experience. Most studies reported intermediate process parameters as the outcome. The risk of performance and reporting bias were high. CONCLUSION: All included studies suffered from poor methodology. The majority, especially studies in which education was part of a multifaceted intervention, reported effectiveness on intermediate outcome markers as prescription errors and potential adverse drug events. However, we found no firm evidence that educating prescribers in the hospital leads to a decrease in patient harm. Further work is needed to develop educational programmes, accompanied by more high-quality research with outcomes on the improvement of patient care.
AIMS: Educating prescribers is a strategy to reduce prescription errors in hospitals. The present systematic review gives an overview of original research papers on the education of prescribers and reporting outcomes on (potential) patient harm. METHODS: A search of the databases Embase and Medline, using the Ovid interface, was performed. Research on the effect of physician education in order to prevent medication-related problems in inpatients, and on reporting original data and outcomes on prescribing errors and/or (potential) patient harm, was included. The assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized studies (MINORS) checklist and the suggested risk of bias criteria for Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) reviews. RESULTS: Eight studies investigated an intervention on education alone, and in seven studies education was the main part of a multifaceted intervention. All studies were small and had short follow-up periods. The educational programmes varied and were given to physicians of different specialties and levels of experience. Most studies reported intermediate process parameters as the outcome. The risk of performance and reporting bias were high. CONCLUSION: All included studies suffered from poor methodology. The majority, especially studies in which education was part of a multifaceted intervention, reported effectiveness on intermediate outcome markers as prescription errors and potential adverse drug events. However, we found no firm evidence that educating prescribers in the hospital leads to a decrease in patient harm. Further work is needed to develop educational programmes, accompanied by more high-quality research with outcomes on the improvement of patient care.
Authors: Ana Miguel; Luís Filipe Azevedo; Manuela Araújo; Altamiro Costa Pereira Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: David J Brinkman; Jelle Tichelaar; Michiel A van Agtmael; Theo P G M de Vries; Milan C Richir Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Megan E Foster; Donald E Lighter; Ashok V Godambe; Brandon Edgerson; Randy Bradley; Sandip Godambe Journal: J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther Date: 2013-01
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: Joanna E Klopotowska; Paul F M Kuks; Peter C Wierenga; Clementine C M Stuijt; Lambertus Arisz; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Nicolette de Keizer; Susanne M Smorenburg; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.070
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Stephanie Natsch; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Johan L W Pot; J Elsbeth Nagtegaal; Andre Wieringa; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Peter A G M De Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2017-11-03
Authors: Fouzia Lghoul-Oulad Saïd; Karin Hek; Linda E Flinterman; Ron Mc Herings; Margaretha F Warlé-van Herwaarden; Sandra de Bie; Vera E Valkhoff; Jelmer Alsma; Mees Mosseveld; Ann M Vanrolleghem; Bruno Hch Stricker; Miriam Cjm Sturkenboom; Peter Agm De Smet; Patricia Mla van den Bemt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 2.890