Cargando…
Improving paediatric prescribing practice in a district general hospital through implementation of a quality improvement programme
Prescribing errors are a well recognised cause of adverse incidents and have a direct effect on patients.[1] This impacts on the doctor-family relationship and results in breakdown of trust and communication.[2] This quality improvement project was carried out in the paediatric ward of a district ge...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4693030/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26734382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u206996.w3769 |
Sumario: | Prescribing errors are a well recognised cause of adverse incidents and have a direct effect on patients.[1] This impacts on the doctor-family relationship and results in breakdown of trust and communication.[2] This quality improvement project was carried out in the paediatric ward of a district general hospital in Northern Ireland. A retrospective analysis of paediatric prescribing errors between January and December 2013 identified two errors that were felt to be secondary to under-reporting. A baseline audit was subsequently performed that highlighted 32 errors across 12 drug charts. A driver diagram identified three components contributing to prescribing errors and relevant tests of change were developed. The three primary drivers included: education and communication, practical prescribing changes, and medicine reconciliation. Seven interventions were implemented sequentially over a six month period and their effectiveness assessed by a prospective drug chart audit. Ten drug charts were selected at random by the staff nurse allocated to medications on the day of audit. The charts were audited using a predesigned proforma and the total number of errors counted. These were subcategorised and results displayed in graphical format after each intervention. Seven audit cycles were completed in total after each intervention was put into practice. The number of errors (including percentage change following each intervention) is as follows: intervention 1: 32 (+19%); Intervention 2: 31 (+15%); Intervention 3: 17 (-37%); Intervention 4: 12 (-56%); Intervention 5: 15 (-44%); Intervention 6: 7 (-74%); Intervention 7: 10 (-63%). In conclusion, permanent and successful measures are needed to reduce prescribing errors in order to minimise the impact of staff changeover and knowledge deficits. |
---|