What is a prescribing error?

B Dean, N Barber, M Schachter
{"title":"What is a prescribing error?","authors":"B Dean,&nbsp;N Barber,&nbsp;M Schachter","doi":"10.1136/qhc.9.4.232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two stage Delphi technique.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"9 4","pages":"232-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qhc.9.4.232","citationCount":"413","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.4.232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 413

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.

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
什么是处方错误?
目的:开发一个由医生主导的处方错误的定义,用于其发生率的定量研究。设计:两级德尔菲法。受试者:一个由34名英国评委组成的小组,其中包括内科医生、外科医生、药剂师、护士和风险管理人员。主要结果测量:法官同意处方错误的一般定义的程度,以及他们同意42种情况中的每一种都代表处方错误的程度。结果:34名评委中有30人(88%)在第一轮德尔菲中回答,30名评委中有26人(87%)在第二轮德尔菲中回答。处方错误的一般定义被接受。专家组达成共识,认为42种情况中的24种应列入处方错误,5种应排除在外。一般来说,转录错误、未能传达基本信息、使用药物或剂量不适合个体患者被认为是处方错误;偏离政策或指导方针则不是。结论:卫生保健专业人员对应纳入和排除处方错误的事件类型有广泛的共识。已经制定了处方错误的一般定义,以及关于应包括的事件类型的更详细的指导。该定义允许比较不同处方系统和不同医院之间的处方错误率,适用于研究和临床治理计划。
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
Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Evidence-based patient empowerment. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red.
×
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