Quality of prescription writing in Brazilian primary health care.

Almária Mariz Batista, Zenewton André da Silva Gama, Pedro Jesús Saturno Hernández, Dyego Souza
{"title":"Quality of prescription writing in Brazilian primary health care.","authors":"Almária Mariz Batista,&nbsp;Zenewton André da Silva Gama,&nbsp;Pedro Jesús Saturno Hernández,&nbsp;Dyego Souza","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the quality of prescription writing in the context of public primary health care.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescription errors are one of the leading patient safety problems in primary care and can be caused by errors in therapeutic decisions or in the quality of prescription writing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional observational study conducted in a municipality in Northeastern Brazil. The assessment instrument (including 13 indicators and one composite indicator) was applied to a representative sample of drug prescriptions from the 24 Family Health Teams providing Primary Health Care in the municipality, dispensed in January 2021. Estimates of compliance and their 95% confidence intervals and graphical analysis of frequencies are assessed globally and stratified by dispensing units and prescribers.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The average composite prescription writing quality on a 0-100 scale was 60.2 (95% CI 57.8-62.6). No quality criteria had 100% compliance. The highest compliance rates were found for 'frequency of administration' (98.9%) and 'identification of the prescriber' (98.9%). On the other hand, 'recorded information on allergy' (0.0%), 'patient's date of birth' (1.7%), 'nonpharmacological recommendations' (1.7%), and 'guidance on the use of the drug' (25%) were the indicators with lower compliance, contributing to 69% of the noncompliances found. The type and frequency of the errors in the quality of prescription writing uncovered in this study confirm the continuing need to tackle this problem to improve patient safety. The results identify priority aspects for interventions and further studies on the quality of prescription writing in the context of Primary Health Care in Brazil.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"24 ","pages":"e49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10466202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the quality of prescription writing in the context of public primary health care.

Background: Prescription errors are one of the leading patient safety problems in primary care and can be caused by errors in therapeutic decisions or in the quality of prescription writing.

Methods: Cross-sectional observational study conducted in a municipality in Northeastern Brazil. The assessment instrument (including 13 indicators and one composite indicator) was applied to a representative sample of drug prescriptions from the 24 Family Health Teams providing Primary Health Care in the municipality, dispensed in January 2021. Estimates of compliance and their 95% confidence intervals and graphical analysis of frequencies are assessed globally and stratified by dispensing units and prescribers.

Findings: The average composite prescription writing quality on a 0-100 scale was 60.2 (95% CI 57.8-62.6). No quality criteria had 100% compliance. The highest compliance rates were found for 'frequency of administration' (98.9%) and 'identification of the prescriber' (98.9%). On the other hand, 'recorded information on allergy' (0.0%), 'patient's date of birth' (1.7%), 'nonpharmacological recommendations' (1.7%), and 'guidance on the use of the drug' (25%) were the indicators with lower compliance, contributing to 69% of the noncompliances found. The type and frequency of the errors in the quality of prescription writing uncovered in this study confirm the continuing need to tackle this problem to improve patient safety. The results identify priority aspects for interventions and further studies on the quality of prescription writing in the context of Primary Health Care in Brazil.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴西初级保健的处方书写质量。
目的:评价公共初级卫生保健背景下处方书写的质量。背景:处方错误是初级保健中主要的患者安全问题之一,可能是由治疗决策或处方书写质量的错误引起的。方法:在巴西东北部的一个市镇进行横断面观察性研究。该评估工具(包括13个指标和一个综合指标)适用于2021年1月在该市提供初级卫生保健的24个家庭卫生团队的代表性处方样本。依从性的估计及其95%置信区间和频率的图形分析在全球范围内进行评估,并按配药单位和处方医生进行分层。结果:0-100分制的平均复合处方书写质量为60.2(95%CI 57.8-62.6)。没有质量标准符合100%。依从性最高的指标是“给药频率”(98.9%)和“处方医生身份”(98.9%)。另一方面,“过敏记录信息”(0.0%)、“患者出生日期”(1.7%)、“非药物建议”(1.7%)和“药物使用指南”(25%)是依从性较低的指标,造成69%的不合规情况。本研究中发现的处方书写质量错误的类型和频率证实了解决这一问题以提高患者安全性的持续必要性。研究结果确定了干预措施的优先方面,并对巴西初级卫生保健背景下的处方书写质量进行了进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healthy ageing in long-term care? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper. Early structured communication between general practitioner, sick-listed patient, and employer: Results and lessons learned from a pragmatic trial in the Capacity Note project. The impact of COVID-19 on referrals among general practitioners and specialists in Shanghai, China. The unrevealed links: periodontal health, human milk composition, and infant gut microbiome dynamics. Primary healthcare as a strategy for eliminating hepatitis C: the METRIC toolkit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1