The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What is a prescribing error?
Open accessAbstract
Objective—To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence. Design—Two stage Delphi technique. Subjects—A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers. Main outcome measures—The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error. Results—Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not. Conclusions—Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives. (Quality in Health Care 2000;9:232–237)
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
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,740
Errors in the medication process: frequency, type, and potential clinical consequences
Lisby, M. (2005) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi015 · Cited by 367
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
Self-citationShulman, R., Singer, M., Goldstone, J., & Bellingan, G. (2005) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc3793 · Cited by 252
The measurement of active errors: methodological issues.
Lilford, R. J. (2003) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Dean, B., Barber, N., & Schachter, M.
- Venue
- Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 232-237
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 0963-8172
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2122894668
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.90
- 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: What is a prescribing error? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.9.4.232
- The paper
- Dean, B., Barber, N., & Schachter, M. (2000). What is a prescribing error? Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.9.4.232
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.