Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differences in prescribing errors between electronic prescribing and traditional prescribing among medical students: A randomized pilot study.
El Abdouni, Samir; Kalfsvel, Laura S; Rietdijk, Wim J R; Van der Kuy, Hugo; van Rosse, Floor.
Afiliação
  • El Abdouni S; Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Kalfsvel LS; Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Rietdijk WJR; Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Van der Kuy H; Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • van Rosse F; Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 2024 Mar 23.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38520277
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

This randomized controlled pilot study aimed to assess the differences in the frequency, type and severity of prescribing errors made by medical students when assessed in an electronic (e-)prescribing system compared to a traditional prescribing method (e.g., typing out a prescription).

METHODS:

Fourth year medical students in the period of 1 November to 31 July 2023, were asked to participate in this single-centre prospective, randomized, controlled intervention study. Participants performed a prescribing assessment in either an e-prescribing system (intervention group) or in a more traditional prescribing platform (control group). The prescriptions were checked for errors, graded and categorized. Differences in prescribing errors, error categories and severity were analysed.

RESULTS:

Out of 334 students, 84 participated in the study. Nearly all participants (98.8%) made 1 or more prescribing errors, primarily involving inadequate information errors. In the intervention group, more participants made prescribing errors involving the prescribed amount (71.4 vs. 19.0%; P < .01), but fewer involving administrative errors (2.4 vs. 19.0%; P = .03). Prescribing-method-specific errors were identified in 4.8 and 40.5% of the intervention and control group, respectively, with significant differences in overlapping errors as well.

CONCLUSION:

This pilot study shows the importance of training e-prescribing competencies in medical curricula, in addition to traditional prescribing methods. It identifies prescribing-method-specific prescribing errors and emphasizes the need for further research to define e-prescribing competencies. Additionally, the need for an accessible real-life-like e-prescribing environment tailored to educators and students is essential for effective learning and incorporation of e-prescribing into medical curricula.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article