| Title |
Quantifying and reducing inhaler prescription errors in secondary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-015-0198-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seher Zaidi, Cathy Mordaunt, Nicola Durnin, Sarah Cooke, John D. Blakey |
| Abstract |
Background Junior doctors commonly prescribe inhaled medication for patients admitted to hospitals, and this may be a potential source of prescription error. Objective To determine the potential type, frequency and cost of prescription errors for inhaled medication, and ascertain if a simple educational intervention can improve junior doctors' knowledge and reduce these. Methods We carried out a prospective study looking at the types and cost of inhaled prescription errors. Simultaneously we tested knowledge of junior doctors' using a quiz. Both the studies were carried out before and after the introduction of inhaler flash cards (pictures of devices with, instructions on use and the medication they contain) on specific wards. This was followed by an electronic feedback survey. Results Error rates varied greatly (p = 6.8 × 10(-8)) by device, with 23 % of Evohaler and Accuhaler prescriptions being incorrect. The average cost of an erroneously prescribed medication was £45.50. There were 14 % incorrect prescriptions before the intervention. There was no significant improvement in junior doctors' knowledge of inhalers or the rate of prescription error after the intervention. Conclusion Prescription errors of inhaled medication are common and costly to rectify. There is a need for improved teaching and training of junior doctors and medical students. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
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 01 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,754,594
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#654
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,500
of 274,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 274,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.