4.4 Article

Prescribing errors intercepted by pharmacist intervention in care of patients hospitalised with breast and gynaecological cancer at a Brazilian teaching hospital

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12767

Keywords

drug prescriptions; medication errors; patient safety

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [01P-3484/2014]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2014/04226-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oncologic inpatients often require multiple drug therapy. They may be at higher risk of experiencing prescribing errors, which pharmacist interventions may help to avoid. This study aimed to evaluate the types of prescribing errors, pharmaceutical interventions and differences in clinical significance, in prescriptions for hospitalised patients with breast and gynaecological cancer. A cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted at the oncology ward of a clinic specialised in breast and gynaecology cancer. A clinical pharmacist analysed prescriptions, identified errors, performed interventions and classified clinical significance. A total of 1,874 prescriptions of 248 patients were evaluated; 11.5% prescriptions were involved at least in one prescribing error, totalising 283 errors. The most common error was unsafe medication due to drug interaction (89[31.4%]). Drugs for the alimentary tract and metabolism, and nervous system were the most involved in errors with statistical association (p=.0246 and p=.0002 respectively). Of the 294 interventions, 73.5% were accepted. The clinical significance of prescribing errors and interventions were classified as significant and very significant respectively. The pharmacist interventions obtained a good acceptance rate and impact significantly, avoiding prescribing errors classified as significant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available