Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Errors in the medication process: frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences

Lisby, M.·2005·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency, type, and consequences of medication errors in more stages of the medication process, including discharge summaries. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using three methods to detect errors in the medication process: direct observations, unannounced control visits, and chart reviews. With the exception of errors in discharge summaries all potential medication error consequences were evaluated by physicians and pharmacists. SETTING: A randomly selected medical and surgical department at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Eligible in-hospital patients aged 18 or over (n = 64), physicians prescribing drugs and nurses dispensing and administering drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences of all detected errors compared with the total number of opportunities for error. RESULTS: We detected a total of 1065 errors in 2467 opportunities for errors (43%). In worst case scenario 20-30% of all evaluated medication errors were assessed as potential adverse drug events. In each stage the frequency of medication errors were-ordering: 167/433 (39%), transcription: 310/558 (56%), dispensing: 22/538 (4%), administration: 166/412 (41%), and finally discharge summaries: 401/526 (76%). The most common types of error throughout the medication process were: lack of drug form, unordered drug, omission of drug/dose, and lack of identity control. CONCLUSION: There is a need for quality improvement, as almost 50% of all errors in doses and prescriptions in the medication process were caused by missing actions. We assume that the number of errors could be reduced by simple changes of existing procedures or by implementing automated technologies in the medication process.

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/intqhc/mzi015

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 367

Metadata

Authors
Lisby, M.
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
15-22
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2167704910
Cited by
367
References
26
FWCI
13.86
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: Errors in the medication process: frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/mzi015
The paper
Lisby, M. (2005). Errors in the medication process: frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzi015

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.