Browsing by Subject "Prescribing errors"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Antibiotic prescribing errors generated by the use of an electronic prescribing system in the emergency department: A mixed-method study
    (United Arab Emirates Ministry of Health & Prevention, 2022) Al Meslamani, Ahmad Z.; Abdel-Qader, Derar H.; Ziad, Noura; Al Mazrouei, Nadia; El-Shara, Asma A.; El Sharu, Husam; Ali, Eman Merghani; Al Zahawi, Rand Haider; Ebaed, Samah Bahy Mohammed; Ibrahim, Osama Mohamed; Center for Health Innovation & Implementation Science
    Context: Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics can result in serious patient harm. Aims: To investigate the incidence, nature, clinical severity, and causes of antibiotic prescribing errors (APEs) in the emergency department (ED) of a large hospital in Jordan. Methods: A mixed-method approach was used to explore the incidence and types of APEs by direct observation of electronic prescriptions (EPS) of antibiotics over four weeks, and to identify causes of errors by semi-structured interviews with ED physicians. The clinical severity of APEs was rated by a committee of experts. SPSS V26 and NVivo 10 were used for the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. Results: The incidence of APEs caused by the use of EPS was 4.3%. Wrong quantity (32.62%), wrong dose (15.25%), and duplicate drugs (13.55%) were identified as the most common types of APEs. More than one-third of APEs identified were deemed clinically significant, seven were serious, and one was lethal. Minor and significant antibiotic APEs across physicians who attended workshops on EPS and those who did not were 75.00% versus 46.77% (p = 0.001) and 18.75% versus 52.41% (p = 0.013), respectively. Three major causes of errors were identified: 1) System-related (system crash, drop-down menu), 2) user-related (lack of computer skills), and 3) workplace-related (overcrowding, inadequate staffing). Conclusions: APEs generated by the use of EPS were common in EDs in Jordan, clinically significant, and multifactorial. Further research is required to cover pharmacists' perspectives of this kind of errors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment of A new Strategy to Prevent Prescribing Errors Involving COVID-19 Patients in Community Pharmacies
    (Sage, 2022) Abdel-Qader, Derar H.; Al Meslamani, Ahmad Z.; Albassam, Abdullah; Al Mazrouei, Nadia; El-Shara, Asma A.; El Sharu, Husam; Ebaed, Samah Bahy Mohammed; Ibrahim, Osama Mohamed; Center for Health Innovation and Implementation Science
    Background: Because COVID-19 patients are vulnerable to prescribing errors (PEs) and adverse drug events, designing and implementing a new approach to prevent prescribing errors (PEs) involving COVID-19 patients has become a priority in pharmacotherapy research. Objectives: To investigate whether using WhatsApp to deliver prescribing error (PE)-related clinical scenarios to community pharmacists could enhance their ability to detect PEs and conduct successful pharmaceutical interventions (PIs). Methods: In this study, 110 community pharmacies were recruited from different regions across Jordan and equally allocated to 2 groups. Over the course of 4 weeks, WhatsApp was used to send PEs-related clinical case scenarios to the active group. The second group was controlled with no clinical scenarios. After completion of the 4-week phase, pharmacists from both groups were asked to document PEs in COVID-19 patients and their interventions using a data-collection form. Results: The incidence of PEs in COVID-19 patients documented in the active group (18.54%) was higher than that reported in the control group (3.09%) (P = .001). Of the 6598 and 968 PIs conducted by participants working in the active and control group pharmacies, 6013 (91.13%) and 651 (67.25%) were accepted, respectively. The proportions of wrong drug (contraindication), wrong drug (unnecessary drug prescribed/no proof of its benefits), and omission of a drug between the active and control groups were 15.30% versus 7.21% (P = .001), 11.85% versus 6.29% (P = .03), and 17.78% versus 10.50% (0.01), respectively. Additionally, the proportions of lethal, serious, and significant errors were 0.74% versus 0.35% (P = .04), 10.52% versus 2.57% (0.002), and 47.88% versus 9.57% (0.001), respectively. Addition of drug therapy interventions (AOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84) and errors with significant clinical seriousness (AOR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64). Conclusions PEs involving COVID-19 patients in community settings are common and clinically significant. The intervention assessed in this study could be promising for designing a feasible and time-efficient interventional tool to encourage pharmacists' involvement in identifying and correcting PEs in light of COVID-19.