Prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: A systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  • External authors:
  • Tim Dornan
  • David Taylor
  • Val Wass

Abstract

Prescribing errors affect patient safety throughout hospital practice. Previous reviews of studies have often targeted specific populations or settings, or did not adopt a systematic approach to reviewing the literature. Therefore, we set out to systematically review the prevalence, incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (all from 1985 to October 2007) were searched for studies of prescriptions for adult or child hospital inpatients giving enough data to calculate an error rate. Electronic prescriptions and errors for single diseases, routes of administration or types of prescribing error were excluded, as were non-English language publications. Median error rate (interquartile range IQR) was 7 (214) of medication orders, 52 (8227) errors per 100 admissions and 24 (6212) errors per 1000 patient days. Most studies (84) were conducted in single hospitals and originated from the US or UK (72). Most errors were intercepted and reported before they caused harm, although two studies reported adverse drug events. Errors were most common with antimicrobials and more common in adults (median 18 of orders ten studies, IQR 725) than children (median 4 six studies, IQR 217). Incorrect dosage was the most common error.Overall, it is clear that prescribing errors are a common occurrence, affecting 7 of medication orders, 2 of patient days and 50 of hospital admissions. However, the reported rates of prescribing errors varied greatly and this could be partly explained by variations in the definition of a prescribing error, the methods used to collect error data and the setting of the study. Furthermore, a lack of standardization between severity scales prevented any comparison of error severity across studies. Future research should address the wide disparity of data-collection methods and definitions that bedevils comparison of error rates or meta-analysis of different studies. © 2009 Adis Data Information BV.

Bibliographical metadata

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-389
Number of pages10
JournalDrug Safety
Volume32
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Related information