| Title |
Development and evaluation of a pocket card to support prescribing by junior doctors in an English hospital
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0119-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew Reynolds, Elina Larsson, Richard Hewitt, Sara Garfield, Bryony Dean Franklin |
| Abstract |
Background Junior doctors do most inpatient prescribing, with a relatively high error rate, and locally had reported finding prescribing very stressful. Objective To develop an intervention to improve Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctors' experience of prescribing, and evaluate their satisfaction with the intervention and perceptions of its impact. Methods Based on findings of a focus group and questionnaire, we developed a pocket Dose Reference Card ("Dr-Card") for use at the point of prescribing. This summarised common drugs and dosing schedules and was distributed to all new FY1 doctors in a London teaching trust. A post-intervention questionnaire explored satisfaction and perceived impact. Results Focus group participants (n = 12) described feeling anxious and time pressured when prescribing; a quick reference resource for commonly prescribed drug doses was suggested. Responses to the exploratory questionnaire reinforced these findings. Following Dr-Card distribution, the post-intervention questionnaire revealed that 29/38 (76 %) doctors were still using it 2 months after distribution and 38/38 (100 %) would recommend ongoing production. Conclusions FY1 doctors reported feeling stressed and time pressured when prescribing; this was perceived to contribute to error. A pocket card presenting common drugs and doses was well-received, perceived to be useful, and recommended for on-going use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,555,398
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#739
of 1,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,995
of 265,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.