Prevalence, Nature, Severity and Risk Factors for Prescribing Errors in Hospital Inpatients: Prospective Study in 20 UK Hospitals

Introduction: It has been suggested that doctors in their first year of post-graduate training make a disproportionate number of prescribing errors.

Obkective: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of prescribing errors made by first-year post-graduate doctors with that of errors by senior doctors and non-medical prescribers and to investigate the predictors of potentially serious prescribing errors.

Methods: Pharmacists in 20 hospitals over 7 prospectively selected days collected data on the number of medication orders checked, the grade of prescriber and details of any prescribing errors. Logistic regression models (adjusted for clustering by hospital) identified factors predicting the likelihood of prescribing erroneously and the severity of prescribing errors.

Results: Pharmacists reviewed 26,019 patients and 124,260 medication orders; 11,235 prescribing errors were detected in 10,986 orders. The mean error rate was 8.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.6-9.1) errors per 100 medication orders. Rates of errors for all doctors in training were significantly higher than rates for medical consultants. Doctors who were 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 2.13; 95 % CI 1.80-2.52) or 2 years in training (OR 2.23; 95 % CI 1.89-2.65) were more than twice as likely to prescribe erroneously. Prescribing errors were 70 % (OR 1.70; 95 % CI 1.61-1.80) more likely to occur at the time of hospital admission than when medication orders were issued during the hospital stay. No significant differences in severity of error were observed between grades of prescriber. Potentially serious errors were more likely to be associated with prescriptions for parenteral administration, especially for cardiovascular or endocrine disorders.

Conclusions: The problem of prescribing errors in hospitals is substantial and not solely a problem of the most junior medical prescribers, particularly for those errors most likely to cause significant patient harm. Interventions are needed to target these high-risk errors by all grades of staff and hence improve patient safety.

The influence of area level social deprivation on preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcomes following unicompartmental knee joint replacement

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on preoperative disease and outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR).

METHODS: 307 Oxford UKRs implanted between 2008 and 2013 under the care of one surgeon using the same surgical technique were analysed. Deprivation was quantified using the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure. Preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcome were measured using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative OKS between deprivation groups. Preoperative knee range of motion (ROM) was significantly reduced in more deprived patients with 10° less ROM than least deprived patients. Postoperatively there was no difference in OKS improvement between deprivation groups (p=0.46), with improvements of 19.5 and 21.0 units in the most and least deprived groups respectively. There was no significant association between deprivation and OKS improvement on unadjusted or adjusted analysis. Preoperative OKS, Short Form 12 mental component score and length of stay were significant independent predictors of OKS improvement. A significantly lower proportion of the most deprived group (15%) reported being able to walk an unlimited distance compared to the least deprived group (41%) one year postoperatively.

CONCLUSION: More deprived patients can achieve similar improvements in OKS to less deprived patients following UKR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b - retrospective cohort study of prognosis.

Bouyid v Belgium: The “minimum level of severity” and Human Dignity's Role in Article 3 ECHR

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered an important judgment on Article 3 ECHR in the case of Bouyid v Belgium. In Bouyid, the Grand Chamber was called upon to consider whether slaps inflicted on a minor and an adult in police custody were in breach of Article 3 ECHR, which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Overruling the Chamber judgment in the case, the Grand Chamber ruled by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 in that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by members of the Belgian police; it found that there had been a breach of the investigative duty under Article 3 also. In this comment, I focus on the fundamental basis of disagreement between the majority of the Grand Chamber and those who found themselves in dissent, on the question of whether there had been a substantive breach of Article 3. The crux of the disagreement lay in the understanding and application of the test of ‘minimum level of severity’, which the ECtHR has established as decisive of whether a particular form of ill-treatment crosses the Article 3 threshold, seen also in light of Article 3’s absolute character, which makes it non-displaceable – that is, immune to trade-offs of the type applicable in relation to qualified rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. I consider the way the majority of the Grand Chamber unpacked and applied the concept of dignity – or ‘human dignity’ – towards finding a substantive breach of Article 3, and briefly distil some of the principles underpinning the understanding of human dignity emerging in the Court’s analysis.