↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals
Published in
Drug Safety, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40264-015-0320-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren M. Ashcroft, Penny J. Lewis, Mary P. Tully, Tracey M. Farragher, David Taylor, Valerie Wass, Steven D. Williams, Tim Dornan

Abstract

It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors. This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors. Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors. Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders. The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 227 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 79 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 45 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 85 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,671,573
of 24,547,718 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#157
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,817
of 268,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,547,718 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.