Systematic derivation of an Australian standard for Tall Man lettering to distinguish similar drug names.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Confusion between similar drug names can cause harmful medication errors. Similar drug names can be visually differentiated using a typographical technique known as Tall Man lettering. While international conventions exist to derive Tall Man representation for drug names, there has been no national standard developed in Australia. This paper describes the derivation of a risk-based, standardized approach for use of Tall Man lettering in Australia, and known as National Tall Man Lettering. METHOD: A three-stage approach was applied. An Australian list of similar drug names was systematically compiled from the literature and clinical error reports. Secondly, drug name pairs were prioritized using a risk matrix based on the likelihood of name confusion (a four-component score) vs. consensus ratings of the potential severity of the confusion by 31 expert reviewers. The mid-type Tall Man convention was then applied to derive the typography for the highest priority drug pair names. RESULTS: Of 250 pairs of confusable Australian drug names, comprising 341 discrete names, 35 pairs were identified by the matrix as an 'extreme' risk if confused. The mid-type Tall Man convention was successfully applied to the majority of the prioritized drugs; some adaption of the convention was required. CONCLUSION: This systematic process for identification of confusable drug names and associated risk, followed by application of a convention for Tall Man lettering, has produced a standard now endorsed for use in clinical settings in Australia. Periodic updating is recommended to accommodate new drug names and error reports.

Look-alike and sound-alike medicines: risks and 'solutions'.

'Look-alike, sound-alike' medicines are associated with dispensing errors. This commentary aims to fuel discussion surrounding how drug name nomenclature and similar packaging between medicines can lead to selection errors, the need for enhanced approval systems for medicine names and packaging, and best practice 'solutions'. The literature reveals a number of environmental risks and human factors that can contribute to such errors. To contextualise these risks, we interviewed 13 quality and safety experts, psycholinguists, and hospital and community pharmacy practitioners in Australia, and commissioned a medical software industry expert to conceptualise electronic initiatives. Environmental factors contributing to such errors, identified through both the literature and interviews, include distractions during dispensing; workflow controls should minimise the 'human factors' element of errors. Technological solutions with some support, and yet recognised limitations, include font variations, automated alerts, barcode scanning and real-time reporting programmed into dispensing software; further development of these initiatives is recommended.