| Title |
Look-alike and sound-alike medicines: risks and ‘solutions’
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-011-9595-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynne M. Emmerton, Mariam F. S. Rizk |
| Abstract |
'Look-alike, sound-alike' medicines are associated with dispensing errors. This commentary aims to fuel discussion surrounding how drug name nomenclature and similar packaging between medicines can lead to selection errors, the need for enhanced approval systems for medicine names and packaging, and best practice 'solutions'. The literature reveals a number of environmental risks and human factors that can contribute to such errors. To contextualise these risks, we interviewed 13 quality and safety experts, psycholinguists, and hospital and community pharmacy practitioners in Australia, and commissioned a medical software industry expert to conceptualise electronic initiatives. Environmental factors contributing to such errors, identified through both the literature and interviews, include distractions during dispensing; workflow controls should minimise the 'human factors' element of errors. Technological solutions with some support, and yet recognised limitations, include font variations, automated alerts, barcode scanning and real-time reporting programmed into dispensing software; further development of these initiatives is recommended. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Maldives | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,496,853
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#99
of 1,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,870
of 244,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 244,737 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.