Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
19 March 2010 | 02:33 GMT


HOME | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | AWARDS | PODCASTS | VIDEO DIARIES

One in 10 prescriptions have errors

Tags: A   consultant   Drug   E-Prescribing   GMC   hospital doctors  

03 Dec 2009

One in 10 written hospital prescriptions contain mistakes, most are minor and spotted but some are potentially lethal.

In many cases the errors result from poor or illegible handwriting, transcribing errors, ambiguous prescriptions or other communication breakdowns.

This is the finding of major new research commissioned by the General Medical Council, which says despite the prevalence of errors most are spotted and few lead to serious harm to patients. Unlike some previous studies the focuses just on prescribing rather than covering prescribing through to medicines administration.

Researchers led by Professor Tim Dornan of the University of Manchester, were commissioned to examine the issue after examined the issue after previous research three years ago indicated newly qualified doctors had not been adequately taught about drugs or prescribing and that many errors were occurring as a result.

The study also found that newly qualified doctors were no more likely to make prescribing errors than more experienced hospital doctors.

They examined 124,260 prescriptions across 19 hospitals - and found just under 9% contained errors.

Of these 11,077 contained errors. More than half of the errors arose because a patient's medication was not prescribed on admission, during a rewrite of a prescription, or when the patient was sent home.

Another 40% were accounted for by prescriptions where the writing was illegible or the wording ambiguous.

The vast majority were intercepted by doctors, senior nurses and pharmacists and corrected before reaching the patient. About 2% of the errors contained potentially lethal instructions - such as failing to take account of a patient's allergies.

To eliminate one potential area of confusion, the GMC is calling for a UK-wide standard prescription chart, similar to that already in use in Wales. This would aid doctors as they move between different hospitals, which currently have inconsistent prescribing forms.

A Department of Health spokesman said it would continue to look into the benefits of electronic prescribing systems, "taking into account the evidence gained where standardisation of the paper chart has been successfully implemented."

The GMC’s chair, Dr Peter Ruben said the new research showed newly qualified doctors were not poorer at prescribing than more experienced ones. “Prescribing errors were made at a similar rate by doctors of all seniority. Interestingly, the highest rate was in FY2 doctors, not those most recently qualified.”

Doctors in their first year of medical training in fact made slightly fewer mistakes than the average, although that rose slightly in their second year. However at 8.3% their rate was the same as registrars. Consultants made the fewest, with 5.9%.

He added that the causes of hospital prescribing errors were not simple: “The causes of the errors were complex and included those familiar culprits of poor communication and busy and stressful working environments.”

"It would certainly help if there was greater uniformity in the prescription forms used in the NHS and the BMA would encourage prescribing procedures to be kept as simple as possible."

Jon Hoeksma

Related Articles
Related Articles

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

Why does it all take so long?

tim.benson@abies.co.uk

03 Dec 09 19:53

We are coming up to the 30th anniversary of the Department of Health (DHSS in those days) making the computer printable prescription - the FP10(Comp) form - available nationwide, which paved the way to ubiquitous GP computing. 

We have now passed the 10th Anniversary of the publcation of the Institute of Medicine's "To Err is Human" (1999).  That was the report that pointed out that medical errors were causing more deaths (98,000 per annum in USA) than motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer or AIDS.

Surely the time has come to mandate that all hospital medication is checked by computers as well as by fallible human beings.

Tim Benson


2

electronic ordering facilitates mistakes

04 Dec 09 06:26

The report is all well and good at first glance and the knee jerk reaction is, we buy CPOE and other electronic ordering devices. Right or is there trouble on the horizon? Electronic prescriptions are rapidly becoming the greatest cause for error according to MEDMARX. The systems also have unintended consequences causing errors in overall medical care as reported by Koppel. Until safety and efficacy is proven, these systems remain experimental.


3

Political Will

george.brown103@ntlworld.com

04 Dec 09 10:38

The case for the electronic prescribing of medicines (with proper decision supoprt) is well established and well documented (Google it). In my experience (20+years with both my Pharmacy and IT background working for both the NHS and commercial sector) the political will to deliver ePrescribing is just not there at the moment: It's not viewed as a priority.

Alongside this - those acute sector trusts who do attempt to initiate ePrescribing projects get hung up on stock control issues.

We can improve Patient Saftey using existing ePrescribing systems that are here TODAY - the stock control (if you want a prescribing system interfaced with stock control) can be addressed afterwards.

......lets save a few lives and worry about what pack size pharmacy is dispensing from afterwards?


4

Surely implement existing systems safely first.

04 Dec 09 16:18

In my large teaching hospital, there is still plenty to be done to improve medicine safety. Theatre drug cupboards STILL contain the same drug side by side with packs from different manufacturers. Although I realise that generic prescribing saves cash, surely changing suppliers almost monthly and mixing the same drug from different manufacturers in clinical areas is not good.

Also, all drugs should be supplied with printed inserts. Recently we introduced Sugammadex to our theatres. The packs contain no information insert which taking away one easy way to check usage and dosage.

Still other drugs in theatres are supplied with Spanish-only inserts - and have no English documentation with them. When I pointed this out all Pharmacy said was "Oh, that's not supposed to happen". Safety should come before a few pennies saved per medication.

In my view, existing systems should be implemented properly. A badly implemented electronic system will be just as prone to error, and perhaps not such benign errors as the "asprin" / "paracetimol" type spellings that seem so common now.


5

deceptively absurd

05 Dec 09 02:53

The output of the electronic experimental ordering programs are deceptive. You see, there these notions that just because it was issued by a computer means that it is right. When there is a handwriting error and/or illegibility, it is immediately noticeable.

But, the mind of the reader of computerized orders remains steadfastly of the impression that the legible gibberish amidst useless detailed verbiage is accurate. WRONG, and these errors are silent but deadly, the good old SBD.

The likelihood is much lower of picking up a computer generated error and such tolerance to absurdity is indeed deadly. There is the story of a London chap who repeatedly received overdoses of chemo for testicular cancer at UCLH. Why? Because the computer said to do it.

And to Google anything thinking that you are going to find something of scientific merit is indeed FOLLY.


6

Its a No Brainer?

06 Dec 09 22:42

With regards to comment # 5 - lets go back to the cave and diagnose disease with dead animal bones shall we?

This is not rocket science:  GP's have been doing ePrescribing for years and I dont see us all dropping dead?

Pharmacists intervene on hospital prescriptions on a DAILY BASIS and only the acute sector seems to be dragging its feet with regards to improving patient care here?

I do wonder just how many hospital prescriptions commenter #5 has actually seen?

I'll lay good money on the answer being NONE.


7

so who is to blame for this inertia

mr.acute.cio@live.co.uk

07 Dec 09 13:57

Lets remember where much (but not all) of the blame for this delay and sorry situation lays.   The 6 level EPR (way back in the last millennium) recognised the value of “ruled based” electronic prescribing as part of an integrated EPR, enabling not only financially efficient prescribing and a reduced risk of inappropriate/inaccurate prescribing but also linking prescribing with investigations to assist the clinician assess in assessing patient response to treatment.

A done deal one might have thought, but the CFC and LSPs felt it presented far to much risk (to them), so it became dropped or sidelined from NPfIT.  Then a couple of year ago something prompted them to reassess the value of E-Prescribing and it is back on the agenda again.  But the only real options seem to be existing (perfectly adequate) commercial products.  Yes there is some noise about Lorenzo E-P products, but they turn out to be far to basic to be worth the effort.

So unfortunately one has to conclude that CFH leadership is more to blame than hospital leadership, who too often did not have the vision or appetite for the challenge.

 


8

Not all is rosy

07 Dec 09 15:43

To poster #6, ok we are not all dropping down dead, but good old GP's ePrescribing managed to give my grandfather allopurinol as treatment for ACUTE gout. This is one of several personal examples of sloppy ePrescribing - I suspect that ePrescribers quickly learn to rely on the built-in rules to correct their mistakes.

Problem is the rules - in my experience - may not be up to the job.

 


9

Quality of Decision Support

07 Dec 09 18:05

Comment #6

I would be looking to see who reviewed the drug data underpinning that particular system - was it a Pharmacist (I doubt it) or someone with a clincal background in medicine (I doubt that too - most are uploaded by techies)?

In my experience of drug database implementations in GP Practice Systems - these are rarely reviewed by an appropraite person before 'accepting' the updates.

Additionally ePresribing is not intended to replace the prescriber - it's a tool to augment and assist the prescribers decisions.


10

Opps

08 Dec 09 09:16

My comment - number 9 should have been directed at the Allopurinol comment - it's still a valid broader comment however.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
Most commented
Most commented
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters