The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: It has been estimated that 1-2% of US inpatients are harmed by medication errors, the majority of which are errors in prescribing. The UK Department of Health has recommended that serious errors in the use of prescribed drugs should be reduced by 40% by 2005; however, little is known about the current incidence of prescribing errors in the UK. This pilot study sought to investigate their incidence in one UK hospital. METHODS: Pharmacists prospectively recorded details of all prescribing errors identified in non-obstetric inpatients during a 4 week period. The number of medication orders written was estimated from a 1 in 5 sample of inpatients. Potential clinical significance was assessed by a pharmacist and a clinical pharmacologist. RESULTS: About 36200 medication orders were written during the study period, and a prescribing error was identified in 1.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 1.6). A potentially serious error occurred in 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.5). Most of the errors (54%) were associated with choice of dose. Error rates were significantly different for different stages of patient stay (p<0.0001) with a higher error rate for medication orders written during the inpatient stay than for those written on admission or discharge. While the majority of all errors (61%) originated in medication order writing, most serious errors (58%) originated in the prescribing decision. CONCLUSIONS: There were about 135 prescribing errors identified each week, of which 34 were potentially serious. Knowing where and when errors are most likely to occur will be helpful in designing initiatives to reduce them. The methods developed could be used to evaluate such initiatives.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention
Bates, D. W. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530010043033 · Cited by 2,127
Cited by
Franklin, B. D., O'Grady, K., Donyai, P., Jacklin, A., & Barber, N. (2007) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.019497 · Cited by 313
Systematic Review of Medication Errors in Pediatric Patients
Ghaleb, M. A., Barber, N., Franklin, B. D., Yeung, V. W., Khaki, Z. F., & Wong, I. C. (2006) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1345/aph.1g717 · Cited by 256
Brown, C., Hofer, T., Johal, A., Thomson, R., Nicholl, J., Franklin, B. D., & Lilford, R. J. (2008) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023655 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Dean, B.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 340-344
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2101098820
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.11.4.340
- The paper
- Dean, B. (2002). Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.340
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.