Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription‐dispensation systems

Ana Belén Jiménez Muñoz (Preventive Medicine and Quality Management Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
Antonio Muiño Miguez (Internal Medicine Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Paz Rodriguez Pérez (Preventive Medicine and Quality Management Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Esther Durán Garcia (Pharmacy Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)
María Sanjurjo Saez (Pharmacy Department, Hospital General, Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain)

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

ISSN: 0952-6862

Publication date: 22 March 2011

Abstract

Purpose

–

Medication errors (MEs) are important in terms of their magnitude and severity, and there are numerous systems in place to reduce their occurrence. However, the ideal system has not yet been identified. The authors' institution uses three different medication prescription‐dispensation systems which operate simultaneously. ME rates were compared, overall and by phase (prescription, transcription and administration) and their overall and specific clinical impact.

Design/methodology/approach

–

The administration of medicinal products was observed directly and compared with medical and nursing prescriptions. Errors and adverse events were classified by a consensus of experts.

Findings

–

In the traditional system the error prevalence rate was 13.59 per cent, (99 per cent CI, 12.15‐14.61 per cent), in the single dose system it was 6.43 per cent (99 per cent CI, 5.53‐7.32) and in the electronic prescription system it was 8.86 per cent (99 per cent CI, 7.33‐10.17). The highest error rates in all phases were found in the traditional system. The phase affected by most errors in all three models was transcription, and the least affected was administration, except for the single dose system, in which prescription was the worst. The effects of errors in the administration phase are greater, although less so than with the automated system.

Research limitations/implications

–

The dispensation phase was not analyzed.

Practical implications

–

A study of errors will enable us to reduce their occurrence if we know the most frequent types and in which phase they are produced, we will be able to prioritise the areas in which to work and select the necessary preventive measures.

Originality/value

–

It is possible that automated medication dispensation systems reduce error rates and the severity of their effects.

Keywords

  • Drug controls
  • Medical prescriptions
  • Patient care
  • Spain

Citation

Belén Jiménez Muñoz, A., Muiño Miguez, A., Paz Rodriguez Pérez, M., Esther Durán Garcia, M. and Sanjurjo Saez, M. (2011), "Comparison of medication error rates and clinical effects in three medication prescription‐dispensation systems", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 238-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526861111116679

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here