Refractive errors associated with tilted optic discs:a prospective study

Purpose: Tilted disc syndrome has been described to be associated with obliquely directed long axis of the disc, oblique direction of vessels, retinal pigment epithelial conus, hypoplasia of retina, visual field defects and myopic astigmatism. This prospective study looks at corneal astigmatism in eyes with a tilted optic disc. Refractive errors in these eyes were also analyzed. Methods: Patients with tilted optic discs were identified prospectively by clinical evaluation (BI, VK). All the patients with obliquely directed long axis of the disc, oblique direction of vessels and retinal pigment epithelial conus were included in the study. Best corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp examination, optic disc measurements, keratometry and refraction were recorded. Results: Twenty four patients (41 eyes) were recruited for the study. Eighteen (75%) patients had bilateral tilted optic discs. Eighteen patients (75%) were females and six (25%) were males. The mean age was 62 years(range 9 – 86 years). 76% of the patients were myopic and 24% hypermetropic. The mean spherical equivalent was –7.49 dioptres (SD 1.7D, range +6D to -17D). The mean corneal astigmatism was 1.09D (SD 0.9D, range 0.25D to 3.80D). The 6 patients who had unilateral, untilted discs were used as a control group to compare their mean corneal astigmatism (1.32 D) with the rest. Student "t" test was performed. ("p" = 0.49). Conclusions: In our study, tilted disc syndrome was found to be largely bilateral and more commonly seen in females. Myopia was the commonest refractive error associated with this clinical condition. However, 24% of patients in this series were hypermetropic. No correlation between the tilting of the optic disc and significant corneal astigmatism was noted as previously reported.

CP-036 evaluation of outpatient clinic letters for medication errors

Background - It is well recognised that errors are more likely to occur during transitions of care, especially medicines errors. Clinic letters are used as a communication tool during a transition from hospital (outpatient clinics) to primary care (general practitioners). Little is known about medicines errors in clinic letters, as previous studies in this area have focused on medicines errors in inpatient or outpatient prescriptions. Published studies concerning clinic letters largely focus on perceptions of patients or general practitioners in respect to overall quality. Purpose - To investigate medicines errors contained in outpatient clinic letters generated by prescribers within the Neurology Department of a specialist paediatric hospital in the UK.Materials and methods - Single site, retrospective, cross-sectional review of 100 clinic letters generated during March–July 2013 in response to an outpatient consultation. Clinic letters were conveniently selected from the most recent visit of each patient. An evaluation tool with a 10-point scale, where 10 was no error and 0 was significant error, was developed and refined throughout the study to facilitate identification and characterisation of medicines errors. The tool was tested for a relationship between scores and number of medicines errors using a regression analysis.Results - Of 315 items related to neurology mentioned within the letters, 212 items were associated with 602 errors. Common missing information was allergy (97%, n = 97), formulation (60.3%, n = 190), strength/concentration (59%, n = 186) and weight (53%, n = 53). Ninety-nine letters were associated with at least one error. Scores were in range of 4–10 with 42% of letters scored as 7. Statistically significant relationships were observed between scores and number of medicines errors (R2 = 0.4168, p < 0.05) as well as between number of medicines and number of drug-related errors (R2 = 0.9719, p < 0.05). Conclusions - Nearly all clinic letters were associated with medicines errors. The 10-point evaluation tool may be a useful device to categorise clinic letter errors.

A retrospective study examining the nature, contributory factors and predictors of dispensing errors in community pharmacy

Introduction: Since 2005, the workload of community pharmacists in England has increased with a concomitant increase in stress and work pressure. However, it is unclear how these factors are impacting on the ability of community pharmacists to ensure accuracy during the dispensing process. This research seeks to extend our understanding of the nature, outcome, and predictors of dispensing errors. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of a purposive sample of incident report forms (IRFs) from the database of a pharmacist indemnity insurance provider was conducted. Data collected included; type of error, degree of harm caused, pharmacy and pharmacist demographics, and possible contributory factors. Results: In total, 339 files from UK community pharmacies were retrieved from the database. The files dated from June 2006 to November 2011. Incorrect item (45.1%, n = 153/339) followed by incorrect strength (24.5%, n = 83/339) were the most common forms of error. Almost half (41.6%, n = 147/339) of the patients suffered some form of harm ranging from minor harm (26.7%, n = 87/339) to death (0.3%, n = 1/339). Insufficient staff (51.6%, n = 175/339), similar packaging (40.7%, n = 138/339) and the pharmacy being busier than normal (39.5%, n = 134/339) were identified as key contributory factors. Cross-tabular analysis against the final accuracy check variable revealed significant association between the pharmacy location (P < 0.024), dispensary layout (P < 0.025), insufficient staff (P < 0.019), and busier than normal (P < 0.005) variables. Conclusion: The results provide an overview of some of the individual, organisational and technical factors at play at the time of a dispensing error and highlight the need to examine further the relationships between these factors and dispensing error occurrence.