Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Investigation of medication errors: A prescription survey from Sri Lanka

KIM De Silva1, KPRC Parakramawansha2, SHT Sudeshika1, Chaminie B Gunawardhana1, MHF Sakeena3

1Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences; 2Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; 3Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

For correspondence:-  MHF Sakeena   Email: sakeenab22@yahoo.co.in   Tel:+94779864620

Received: 24 November 2014        Accepted: 29 August 2015        Published: 29 November 2015

Citation: Silva KD, Parakramawansha K, Sudeshika S, Gunawardhana CB, Sakeena M. Investigation of medication errors: A prescription survey from Sri Lanka. Trop J Pharm Res 2015; 14(11):2115-2015 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v14i10.23

© 2015 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To identify and quantify possible errors in handwritten outpatient prescriptions in relation to adherence to standard guidelines on the layout and content of prescriptions.
Methods: A sample of 200 handwritten outpatient prescriptions were collected from two pharmacies located in a sub-urban (Aluthgama) and an urban (Kandy) area in Sri Lanka. Data were extracted using a pilot-tested questionnaire and the legibility of the prescription was assessed by three independent investigators. The results from the suburban area were compared with those from the urban area.
Results: Based on the layout of the prescription, the presence of patient information was unsatisfactory. Patient name and age were present in less than half of the prescriptions. However, prescriber information except registration number was present in more than 75 % of the prescriptions. Date of consultation was present in > 81.5 % of the prescriptions. Non-standard abbreviations were used in 36.5 % of the prescriptions while incomplete units were observed in 51 % of the prescriptions. Nearly half of the prescriptions from both urban and suburban locations were illegible. Occurrence of prescriber details was a significantly different between Aluthgama and Kandy.
Conclusion: Prescription errors are common in outpatient settings of Aluthgama and Kandy areas in Sri Lanka. Standardized prescription writing process in relation to layout, use of abbreviations, and units and legibility, is proposed as a potential solution to overcome this problem.

Keywords: Medication error, Prescriptions, Standardized prescription writing, Prescriber information, Non-standard abbreviation

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates