Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fundamentals of medication error research

Allan, Elizabeth A., Barker, Kenneth N.·1990·American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract

Types of medication errors are defined, error detection techniques are described, and the validity of several medication error studies is evaluated. A medication error is generally defined as a deviation from the physician's medication order as written on the patient's chart. In hospitals, medication errors occur at a rate of about one per patient per day. A dispensing error is one made by pharmacy staff when distributing medications to nursing units or directly to patients in an ambulatory-care pharmacy; the error rates for doses dispensed via the cart-filling process range from 0.87% to 2.9%. Categories of medication errors should be operationally defined before an investigation, and any allowable deviations from the physician's order should be clearly stated. Fourteen error category definitions are presented. Methods for detecting medication errors include anonymous self-reports (questionnaires), incident reports, the critical-incident technique (analyses of a large number of individual errors to identify common causal factors), and direct observation (including the disguised-observation and participant observer techniques). Observation is the best error detection method in terms of accuracy. Results of medication error studies were examined for validity and classified into one of four categories: (A) results should be accepted as reported, (B) results overestimate or underestimate the truth by a known amount, (C) results overestimate the truth by an unknown amount, and (D) results should not be accepted. All studies examined for validity used observation as the error detection technique. The following guidelines for observation-based medication error studies were established: The observer should follow the subject to the patient's bedside, the observer should witness patient consumption of each dose, the observer should not be familiar with patient drug regimens before observation, operational definitions must be used, and having an error validation committee can be advantageous. Future studies are needed that focus on the identification and testing of new error prevention methods that use the techniques described.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajhp/47.3.555

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Allan, E. A., & Barker, K. N.
Venue
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Published
1990-03-01
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
555-571
ISSN
  • 1079-2082 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-2900
OpenAlex
W2259989678
Cited by
354
References
0
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fundamentals of medication error research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ajhp/47.3.555
The paper
Allan, E. A., & Barker, K. N. (1990). Fundamentals of medication error research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/47.3.555

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.