PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11101708

What is a prescribing error?

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence. DESIGN: Two stage Delphi technique. SUBJECTS: A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Dean, N Barber, M Schachter. 2000. What is a prescribing error?. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.4.232

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Postal survey of approaches to learning among Ontario physicians: implications for continuing medical education.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the approaches to learning of practising physicians in their workplace and to assess the relation of these approaches to their motivation for, preferred methods of, and perceived barriers to continuing medical education. DESIGN: Postal survey of 800 Ontario physicians. PARTICIPANTS: 373 physicians who responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlations of approaches to learning and perceptions of workplace climate with methods, motives, and barriers to continuing medical education. RESULTS: Perceived heavy workload was significantly associated with the surface disorganised (r=0.463, P<0.01) and surface rational approach (r=0.135, P<0.05) to learning. The deep approach to learning was significantly correlated with a perception of choice-independence and a supportive-receptive climate at work (r=0.341 and 0.237, P<0.01). Physicians who adopt a deep approach to learning seem to be internally motivated to learn, whereas external motivation is associated with surface approaches to learning. Heavy workload and a surface disorganised approach to learning were correlated with every listed barrier to continuing medical education. The deep approach to learning was associated with independent learning activities and no barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of the workplace climate affects physicians' approaches to learning at work and their motivation for and perceived barriers to continuing medical education. Younger, rural, family physicians may be most vulnerable to feeling overworked and adopting less effective approaches to learning. Further work is required to determine if changing the workplace environment will help physicians learn more effectively.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗