File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Methodological variability in detecting prescribing errors and consequences for the evaluation of interventions

TitleMethodological variability in detecting prescribing errors and consequences for the evaluation of interventions
Authors
Issue Date2009
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5669
Citation
Pharmacoepidemiology And Drug Safety, 2009, v. 18 n. 11, p. 992-999 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To compare four methods of detecting prescribing errors (PE) in the same patient cohorts before and after an intervention (computerised physician order entry; CPOE) and to determine whether the impact of CPOE is identified consistently by all methods. Methods: PEs were identified using (1) prospective detection by ward pharmacist; (2) retrospective health record review; (3) retrospective use of a trigger tool and (4) spontaneous reporting over two separate 4-week periods on one surgical ward in a UK teaching hospital. Results: We reviewed 93 patients pre- and 114 post-CPOE. Using all four methods, we identified 135 PE (10.7% of all medication orders) pre-CPOE, and 127 (7.9%) post-CPOE. There was little overlap in PE detected by the different methods: prospective detection identified 48 (36% of all PE) pre- and 30 (24%) post-CPOE; retrospective review (RR) revealed 93 (69%) pre- and 105 (83%) post-CPOE, trigger tool 0 pre- and 2 (2%) post-CPOE and spontaneous reporting 1 (1%) pre- and 1 (1%) post-CPOE. The calculated relative reduction in risk of PE was 50% using prospective data, 12% with RR and 26% using data from all four methods. Conclusions: In this study, each method predominantly identified different PE. A combination of methods may be required to understand the true effectiveness of different interventions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/171389
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.908
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.804
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFranklin, BDen_US
dc.contributor.authorBirch, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorSavage, Ien_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, Ien_US
dc.contributor.authorWoloshynowych, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorJacklin, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorBarber, Nen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-30T06:13:49Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-30T06:13:49Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.citationPharmacoepidemiology And Drug Safety, 2009, v. 18 n. 11, p. 992-999en_US
dc.identifier.issn1053-8569en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/171389-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare four methods of detecting prescribing errors (PE) in the same patient cohorts before and after an intervention (computerised physician order entry; CPOE) and to determine whether the impact of CPOE is identified consistently by all methods. Methods: PEs were identified using (1) prospective detection by ward pharmacist; (2) retrospective health record review; (3) retrospective use of a trigger tool and (4) spontaneous reporting over two separate 4-week periods on one surgical ward in a UK teaching hospital. Results: We reviewed 93 patients pre- and 114 post-CPOE. Using all four methods, we identified 135 PE (10.7% of all medication orders) pre-CPOE, and 127 (7.9%) post-CPOE. There was little overlap in PE detected by the different methods: prospective detection identified 48 (36% of all PE) pre- and 30 (24%) post-CPOE; retrospective review (RR) revealed 93 (69%) pre- and 105 (83%) post-CPOE, trigger tool 0 pre- and 2 (2%) post-CPOE and spontaneous reporting 1 (1%) pre- and 1 (1%) post-CPOE. The calculated relative reduction in risk of PE was 50% using prospective data, 12% with RR and 26% using data from all four methods. Conclusions: In this study, each method predominantly identified different PE. A combination of methods may be required to understand the true effectiveness of different interventions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5669en_US
dc.relation.ispartofPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safetyen_US
dc.subject.meshDrug Prescriptions - Standardsen_US
dc.subject.meshEfficiency, Organizationalen_US
dc.subject.meshHospitals, Teachingen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshLondonen_US
dc.subject.meshMedical Order Entry Systems - Organization & Administration - Standards - Statistics & Numerical Dataen_US
dc.subject.meshMedication Errors - Prevention & Control - Statistics & Numerical Dataen_US
dc.subject.meshMedication Systems, Hospital - Organization & Administration - Standards - Statistics & Numerical Dataen_US
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen_US
dc.titleMethodological variability in detecting prescribing errors and consequences for the evaluation of interventionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWong, I:wongick@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityWong, I=rp01480en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pds.1811en_US
dc.identifier.pmid19634116-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-70549105007en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-70549105007&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume18en_US
dc.identifier.issue11en_US
dc.identifier.spage992en_US
dc.identifier.epage999en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000271782200002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFranklin, BD=16416542300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBirch, S=35797911600en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSavage, I=7004074225en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, I=7102513915en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWoloshynowych, M=16752525900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridJacklin, A=6603125680en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBarber, N=7005001200en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats