The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors: a review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To identify, review and evaluate the published literature on the incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors in community and hospital pharmacy. Method: Electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2008. This was supplemented by hand-searching the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Analysis of the findings explored the research methods, operational definitions, incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors. Key findings: Sixty papers were identified investigating dispensing errors in the UK, US, Australia, Spain and Brazil. In general, the incidence of dispensing errors varied depending on the study setting, dispensing system, research method and operational definitions. The most common dispensing errors identified by community and hospital pharmacies were dispensing the wrong drug, strength, form or quantity, or labelling medication with the incorrect directions. Factors subjectively reported as contributing to dispensing errors were look-alike, sound-alike drugs, low staffing and computer software. High workload, interruptions, distractions and inadequate lighting were objectively shown to increase the occurrence of dispensing errors. Conclusions: Comparison of the reviewed studies was confounded by differences in study setting, research method and operational definitions for dispensing errors, error rate and classification of error types. The World Health Organization is currently developing global patient safety taxonomy. Such a standardized taxonomy for dispensing errors would facilitate consistent data collection and assist the development of error-reduction strategies.
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
Cited by
Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England
Elliott, R. A., Camacho, E., Jankovic, D., Sculpher, M. J., & Faria, R. (2021) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206 · Cited by 425
How safe is primary care? A systematic review
Panesar, S. S., deSilva, D., Carson-Stevens, A., Cresswell, K. M., Salvilla, S. A., Slight, S. P., Javad, S., Netuveli, G., Larizgoitia, I., Donaldson, L. J., et al. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004178 · Cited by 309
Dispensing errors in hospital pharmacies: A prospective study in Yemen
Al-Worafi, Y. M., Elkalmi, R. M., Ming, L. C., Othman, G., Halboup, A. M., Battah, M. M., Dhabali, A. A., Jaber, A. A. S., Al-Shami, A. M., Alakhali, K. M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-153952/v1 · Cited by 268
Medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care: a rapid review
Gleeson, L. L., Clyne, B., Barlow, J. W., Ryan, B., Murphy, P., Wallace, E., De Brún, A., Mellon, L., Hanratty, M., Ennis, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riac087 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- James, K. L., Barlow, D., McArtney, R., Hiom, S., Roberts, D., & Whittlesea, C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Pharmacy Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-30
- ISSN
- 0961-7671 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-7174
- OpenAlex
- W2085054025
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.64
- 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: Incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors: a review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1211/ijpp.17.1.0004
- The paper
- James, K. L., Barlow, D., McArtney, R., Hiom, S., Roberts, D., & Whittlesea, C. (2010). Incidence, type and causes of dispensing errors: a review of the literature. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. https://doi.org/10.1211/ijpp.17.1.0004
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.