Differences in prescribing errors between electronic prescribing and traditional prescribing among medical students: A randomized pilot study.

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.

The impact of a summative national prescribing assessment and curriculum type on the development of the prescribing competence of junior doctors.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of including the Dutch National Pharmacotherapy Assessment (DNPA) in the medical curriculum on the level and development of prescribing knowledge and skills of junior doctors. The secondary aim was to evaluate the relationship between the curriculum type and the prescribing competence of junior doctors. METHODS: We re-analysed the data of a longitudinal study conducted in 2016 involving recently graduated junior doctors from 11 medical schools across the Netherlands and Belgium. Participants completed three assessments during the first year after graduation (around graduation (+ / - 4 weeks), and 6 months, and 1 year after graduation), each of which contained 35 multiple choice questions (MCQs) assessing knowledge and three clinical case scenarios assessing skills. Only one medical school used the DNPA in its medical curriculum; the other medical schools used conventional means to assess prescribing knowledge and skills. Five medical schools were classified as providing solely theoretical clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education; the others provided both theoretical and practical CPT education (mixed curriculum). RESULTS: Of the 1584 invited junior doctors, 556 (35.1%) participated, 326 (58.6%) completed the MCQs and 325 (58.5%) the clinical case scenarios in all three assessments. Junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA had higher knowledge scores than other junior doctors (76.7% [SD 12.5] vs. 67.8% [SD 12.6], 81.8% [SD 11.1] vs. 76.1% [SD 11.1], 77.0% [12.1] vs. 70.6% [SD 14.0], p < 0.05 for all three assessments, respectively). There was no difference in skills scores at the moment of graduation (p = 0.110), but after 6 and 12 months junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA had higher skills scores (both p < 0.001). Junior doctors educated with a mixed curriculum had significantly higher scores for both knowledge and skills than did junior doctors educated with a theoretical curriculum (p < 0.05 in all assessments). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the inclusion of the knowledge focused DNPA in the medical curriculum improves the prescribing knowledge, but not the skills, of junior doctors at the moment of graduation. However, after 6 and 12 months, both the knowledge and skills were higher in the junior doctors whose medical curriculum included the DNPA. A curriculum that provides both theoretical and practical education seems to improve both prescribing knowledge and skills relative to a solely theoretical curriculum.

Do junior doctors make more prescribing errors than experienced doctors when prescribing electronically using a computerised physician order entry system combined with a clinical decision support system? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Prescribing errors can lead to inconvenience, morbidity and mortality. It is therefore crucial to educate doctors to prescribe safely, efficiently and effectively. To create an effective educational programme, it is essential to understand which errors are made and by whom. The aim of this study is to explore if the experience level of the doctor influences how many and which prescribing errors are made in a European academic teaching hospital, where a computerised physician order entry system (CPOE) with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) is exclusively used. METHODS: Prescriptions for all inpatients in an academic teaching hospital were collected in June 2021. All prescriptions with an alert generated by the CDSS which could not be handled by a pharmacy technician according to local protocol were checked for errors. Identified errors were categorised by type and severity. RESULTS: A total of 130 538 prescriptions were newly made or altered by doctors. Of these prescriptions, 1914 (1.5%) were retained for a check by the pharmacist. These contained 430 prescribing errors (0.3% of total prescriptions). Doctors not in specialty training and those in specialty training made more prescribing errors than consultants (0.5% and 0.5% vs 0.1%; p<0.001). Doctors in specialty training made relatively more drug-drug interaction errors than consultants (n=31 (16%) vs n=3 (3%), p<0.05). No significant difference was found regarding the severity of the errors. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors not in specialty training and doctors in specialty training, who are the less experienced doctors, make more prescribing errors than consultants, even with the use of a CPOE combined with CDSS. The type of errors differ between doctors of different experience levels. This finding provides a solid basis for specific additional education to medical students, doctors not in specialty training and doctors in specialty training.

The Dutch list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education: A modified Delphi study.

AIMS: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. METHODS: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. RESULTS: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.

A Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Teacher's Guide to Race-Based Medicine, Inclusivity, and Diversity.

The relationship between race and biology is complex. In contemporary medical science, race is a social construct that is measured via self-identification of study participants. But even though race has no biological essence, it is often used as variable in medical guidelines (e.g., treatment recommendations specific for Black people with hypertension). Such recommendations are based on clinical trials in which there was a significant correlation between self-identified race and actual, but often unmeasured, health-related factors such as (pharmaco)genetics, diet, sun exposure, etc. Many teachers are insufficiently aware of this complexity. In their classes, they (unintentionally) portray self-reported race as having a biological essence. This may cause students to see people of shared race as biologically or genetically homogeneous, and believe that race-based recommendations are true for all individuals (rather than reflecting the average of a heterogeneous group). This medicalizes race and reinforces already existing healthcare disparities. Moreover, students may fail to learn that the relation between race and health is easily biased by factors such as socioeconomic status, racism, ancestry, and environment and that this limits the generalizability of race-based recommendations. We observed that the clinical case vignettes that we use in our teaching contain many stereotypes and biases, and do not generally reflect the diversity of actual patients. This guide, written by clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teachers, aims to help our colleagues and teachers in other health professions to reflect on and improve our teaching on race-based medical guidelines and to make our clinical case vignettes more inclusive and diverse.

How would final-year medical students perform if their skill-based prescription assessment was real life?

AIMS: Prescribing errors occur frequently, especially among junior doctors. Our aim was to investigate prescribing errors made by final-year medical students. Information on these errors can help to improve education on and assessment of clinical pharmacotherapy (CPT). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study amongst final-year medical students at Erasmus Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Errors made in the final prescribing assessment were analysed. Errors were categorized by type, possible consequence and possibility of reaching the patient in real life. RESULTS: A total of 381 students wrote 1502 analysable prescriptions. Forty per cent of these contained at least one error, and 54% of errors were of the inadequate information type. The rating of prescriptions for children was lower than for other question categories (P = <.001). Fifty per cent of errors were classified as "would have reached the patient but would not have had the potential to cause harm". In total, 253 (29%) errors would not have been intercepted by an electronic prescribing system or a pharmacist. Ten (4%) of these would probably have caused harm in the patient. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of errors in prescriptions written by final-year medical students. Most errors were of the inadequate information type, indicating that students had difficulties determining the content and amount of information needed to make treatment successful. Prescriptions for children contained most errors. Curricula could be improved by offering more case-based CPT education, focusing on the practical issues of prescribing, especially for paediatric cases, and offering more practice time for prescribing during clerkships.

Do we become better prescribers after graduation: A 1-year international follow-up study among junior doctors.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate how the prescribing knowledge and skills of junior doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium develop in the year after graduation. We also analysed differences in knowledge and skills between surgical and nonsurgical junior doctors. METHODS: This international, multicentre (n = 11), longitudinal study analysed the learning curves of junior doctors working in various specialties via three validated assessments at about the time of graduation, and 6 months and 1 year after graduation. Each assessment contained 35 multiple choice questions (MCQs) on medication safety (passing grade ≥85%) and three clinical scenarios. RESULTS: In total, 556 junior doctors participated, 326 (58.6%) of whom completed the MCQs and 325 (58.5%) the clinical case scenarios of all three assessments. Mean prescribing knowledge was stable in the year after graduation, with 69% (SD 13) correctly answering questions at assessment 1 and 71% (SD 14) at assessment 3, whereas prescribing skills decreased: 63% of treatment plans were considered adequate at assessment 1 but only 40% at assessment 3 (P < .001). While nonsurgical doctors had similar learning curves for knowledge and skills as surgical doctors (P = .53 and P = .56 respectively), their overall level was higher at all three assessments (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: These results show that junior doctors' prescribing knowledge and skills did not improve while they were working in clinical practice. Moreover, their level was under the predefined passing grade. As this might adversely affect patient safety, educational interventions should be introduced to improve the prescribing competence of junior doctors.

Better performance of medical students on pharmacotherapy knowledge and skills tests is associated with practising with e-learning program P-scribe.

AIMS: Junior doctors write most hospital prescriptions, yet are more than twice as likely to make an error in their prescriptions compared to senior doctors. A possibility to enhance pharmacotherapy education is through the use of e-learning modules. The aim of this study was to determine whether P-scribe, as the chosen e-learning resource, helps students in passing their pharmacotherapy assessments. METHODS: This retrospective study was undertaken in the Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands. All 270 medical students who started their master's curriculum in the academic session of 2017-2018 were included. Data were analysed to identify the frequency of student's use per e-learning module, total time students spent on e-learning modules and timing of the use of e-learning modules in relation to their assessments. The results of the assessments were analysed to identify possible correlations between the time students spent using P-scribe, their timing of use and their assessment results. RESULTS: Students who passed their knowledge-based assessment first time had a mean practice time of five more hours than students who did not pass first time (P < .05, 95% CI: 3.4-6.6). These students practised on average six e-learning modules more (P < .05, 95% CI: 4.1-7.0) than students who failed their first attempt. Students who passed their skill-based prescription test first time, practised on average five more e-learning modules (P = .006, 95% CI: 1.4-8.3) than students who failed their first attempt. CONCLUSION: Students who passed their pharmacotherapy assessments first time spent more time, and practised more frequently, with e-learning modules.

Role of relatives of ethnic minority patients in patient safety in hospital care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Relatives of ethnic minority patients often play an important role in the care process during hospitalisation. Our objective was to analyse the role of these relatives in relation to the safety of patients during hospital care. SETTING: Four large urban hospitals with an ethnic diverse patient population. PARTICIPANTS: On hospital admission of ethnic minority patients, 20 cases were purposively sampled in which relatives were observed to play a role in the care process. OUTCOME MEASURES: We used documents (patient records) and added eight cases with qualitative interviews with healthcare providers, patients and/or their relatives to investigate the relation between the role of relatives and patient safety. An inductive approach followed by selective coding was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Besides giving social support, family members took on themselves the role of the interpreter, the role of substitutes of the patient and the role of care provider. The taking over of these roles can have positive and negative effects on patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: When family members take over various roles during hospitalisation of a relative, this can lead to a safety risk and a safety protection for the patient involved. Although healthcare providers should not hand over their responsibilities to the relatives of patients, optimising collaboration with relatives who are willing to take part in the care process may improve patient safety.

Language barriers and patient safety risks in hospital care. A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: A language barrier has been shown to be a threat for quality of hospital care. International studies highlighted a lack of adequate noticing, reporting, and bridging of a language barrier. However, studies on the link between language proficiency and patient safety are scarce, especially in Europe. The present study investigates patient safety risks due to language barriers during hospitalization, and the way language barriers are detected, reported, and bridged in Dutch hospital care. METHODS: We combined quantitative and qualitative methods in a sample of 576 ethnic minority patients who were hospitalized on 30 wards within four urban hospitals. The nursing and medical records of 17 hospital admissions of patients with language barriers were qualitatively analyzed, and complemented by 12 in-depth interviews with care providers and patients and/or their relatives to identify patient safety risks during hospitalization. The medical records of all 576 patients were screened for language barrier reports. The results were compared to patients' self-reported Dutch language proficiency. The policies of wards regarding bridging language barriers were compared with the reported use of interpreters in the medical records. RESULTS: Situations in hospital care where a language barrier threatened patient safety included daily nursing tasks (i.e. medication administration, pain management, fluid balance management) and patient-physician interaction concerning diagnosis, risk communication and acute situations. In 30% of the patients that reported a low Dutch proficiency, no language barrier was documented in the patient record. Relatives of patients often functioned as interpreter for them and professional interpreters were hardly used. DISCUSSION: The present study showed a wide variety of risky situations in hospital care for patients with language barriers. These risks can be reduced by adequately bridging the language barrier, which, in the first place, demands adequate detecting and reporting of a language barrier. This is currently not sufficiently done in most Dutch hospitals. Moreover, new solutions to bridge language barriers are needed for situations such as routine safety checks performed by nurses, in which a professional or even informal interpreter is not feasible.

Ethnic minority patients not at increased risk of adverse events during hospitalisation in urban hospitals in the Netherlands: results of a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We analysed potential differences in incidence, type, nature, impact and preventability of adverse events (AEs) during hospitalisation between ethnic Dutch and ethnic minority patients, and the role of patient-related determinants. We hypothesised an increased AE incidence for ethnic minority patients. SETTING: We conducted a prospective cohort study in four urban hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 763 Dutch patients and 576 ethnic minority patients aged between 45 and 75, admitted for at least one night, were included in the study. All patients completed a questionnaire on patient-related determinants (eg, language proficiency). OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence, type (eg, diagnostic AEs), impact and nature of AEs were assessed with a two-stage medical record review. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for patient and admission characteristics, and to investigate the contribution of patient-related determinants to AE risk. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs: 11% (95% CI 9% to 14%) in Dutch patients and 10% (95% CI 7% to 12%) in ethnic minority patients. Also, there was no significant difference in the incidence of preventable AEs: 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%) in Dutch patients and 1% (95% CI 0% to 2%) in ethnic minority patients. Low language proficiency, inadequate health literacy and low educational level did not increase the risk of an AE. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Dutch patients, ethnic minority patients were not at increased risk of AEs while receiving care in Dutch hospitals. Healthcare providers seem to have responded effectively to specific patient care needs, but we do not know whether this occurred in an ad hoc or in a systematic way.

Ethnic variations in unplanned readmissions and excess length of hospital stay: a nationwide record-linked cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies in the USA have shown ethnic inequalities in quality of hospital care, but in Europe, this has never been analysed. We explored variations in indicators of quality of hospital care by ethnicity in the Netherlands. METHODS: We analysed unplanned readmissions and excess length of stay (LOS) across ethnic groups in a large population of hospitalized patients over an 11-year period by linking information from the national hospital discharge register, the Dutch population register and socio-economic data. Data were analysed with stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Ethnic differences were most pronounced in older patients: all non-Western ethnic groups > 45 years had an increased risk for excess LOS compared with ethnic Dutch patients, with odds ratios (ORs) (adjusted for case mix) varying from 1.05 [95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.02-1.08] for other non-Western patients to 1.14 (95% CI 1.07-1.22) for Moroccan patients. The risk for unplanned readmission in patients >45 years was increased for Turkish (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.18-1.30) and Surinamese patients (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07-1.16). These differences were explained partially, although not substantially, by differences in socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: We found significant ethnic variations in unplanned readmissions and excess LOS. These differences may be interpretable as shortcomings in the quality of hospital care delivered to ethnic minority patients, but exclusion of alternative explanations (such as differences in patient- and community-level factors, which are outside hospitals' control) requires further research. To quantify potential ethnic inequities in hospital care in Europe, we need empirical prospective cohort studies with solid quality outcomes such as adverse event rates.

Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the change in adverse event (AE) rates and preventable AE rates over time, identify certain patient risk groups and discuss factors influencing the outcome. DESIGN: Longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 21 hospitals in The Netherlands in 2004, and 20 hospitals in 2008. In each hospital, 400 patient admissions were included in 2004, and 200 in 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEs and preventable AEs. RESULTS: Multilevel analyses of 11 883 patient records (7.887 in 2004, 3.996 in 2008) showed that the rate of patients experiencing an AE increased from 4.1% (95% CI 3.3% to 5.1%) in 2004 to 6.2% (95% CI 5.0% to 7.6%) in 2008. The preventable AE rate remained relatively stable at 1.8% (95% CI 1.3% to 2.4%) in 2004 and 1.6% (95% CI 1.2% to 2.3%) in 2008. The risk of experiencing a preventable AE was increasingly higher for patients admitted to a surgical unit (OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.16) in 2004 and 3.32 (95% CI 2.17 to 5.07)) in 2008. More than 50% of all AEs were related to surgery. Indications were found that differences in the risk of experiencing a preventable AE between hospital departments were larger in 2008 than in 2004, while differences between hospitals themselves were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Patient harm related to healthcare is a persistent problem that is hard to influence. Measuring AEs over time stresses the continuing urgency, and also identifies possible areas for improvement.

Design of a prospective cohort study to assess ethnic inequalities in patient safety in hospital care using mixed methods.

BACKGROUND: While US studies show a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) for ethnic minorities in hospital care, in Europe ethnic inequalities in patient safety have never been analysed. Based on existing literature and exploratory research, our research group developed a conceptual model and empirical study to increase our understanding of the role ethnicity plays in patient safety. Our study is designed to (1) assess the risk of AEs for hospitalised patients of non-Western ethnic origin in comparison to ethnic Dutch patients; (2) analyse what patient-related determinants affect the risk of AEs; (3) explore the mechanisms of patient-provider interactions that may increase the risk of AEs; and (4) explore possible strategies to prevent inequalities in patient safety. METHODS: We are conducting a prospective mixed methods cohort study in four Dutch hospitals, which began in 2010 and is running until 2013. 2000 patients (1000 ethnic Dutch and 1000 of non-Western ethnic origin, ranging in age from 45-75 years) are included. Survey data are collected to capture patients' explanatory variables (e.g., Dutch language proficiency, health literacy, socio-economic status (SES)-indicators, and religion) during hospital admission. After discharge, a two-stage medical record review using a standardized instrument is conducted by experienced reviewers to determine the incidence of AEs. Data will be analysed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative interviews with providers and patients will provide insight into the mechanisms of AEs and potential prevention strategies. CONCLUSION: This study uses a robust study plan to quantify the risk difference of AEs between ethnic minority and Dutch patients in hospital care. In addition we are developing an in-depth description of the mechanisms of excess risk for some groups compared to others, while identifying opportunities for more equitable distributions of patient safety for all.

Prioritizing emerging zoonoses in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of early warning and surveillance systems of emerging zoonoses, we present a general method to prioritize pathogens using a quantitative, stochastic multi-criteria model, parameterized for the Netherlands. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A risk score was based on seven criteria, reflecting assessments of the epidemiology and impact of these pathogens on society. Criteria were weighed, based on the preferences of a panel of judges with a background in infectious disease control. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Pathogens with the highest risk for the Netherlands included pathogens in the livestock reservoir with a high actual human disease burden (e.g. Campylobacter spp., Toxoplasma gondii, Coxiella burnetii) or a low current but higher historic burden (e.g. Mycobacterium bovis), rare zoonotic pathogens in domestic animals with severe disease manifestations in humans (e.g. BSE prion, Capnocytophaga canimorsus) as well as arthropod-borne and wildlife associated pathogens which may pose a severe risk in future (e.g. Japanese encephalitis virus and West-Nile virus). These agents are key targets for development of early warning and surveillance.

The effect of computerized physician order entry on medication prescription errors and clinical outcome in pediatric and intensive care: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Pediatric and intensive care patients are particularly at risk for medication errors. Computerized physician order entry systems could be effective in reducing medication errors and improving outcome. Effectiveness of computerized physician order entry systems has been shown in adult medical care. However, in critically ill patients and/or children, medication prescribing is a more complex process, and usefulness of computerized physician order entry systems has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of computerized physician order entry systems on medication prescription errors, adverse drug events, and mortality in inpatient pediatric care and neonatal, pediatric or adult intensive care settings. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase up to November 2007 were used as our data sources. Inclusion criteria were studies of (1) children 0 to 18 years old and/or ICU patients (including adults), (2) computerized physician order entry versus no computerized physician order entry as intervention, and (3) randomized trial or observational study design. All studies were validated, and data were analyzed. RESULTS. Twelve studies, all observational, met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies took place at an ICU: 4 were adult ICUs, and 4 were PICUs and/or NICUs. Four studies were pediatric inpatient studies. Meta-analysis showed a significant decreased risk of medication prescription errors with use of computerized physician order entry. However, there was no significant reduction in adverse drug events or mortality rates. A qualitative assessment of studies revealed the implementation process of computerized physician order entry software as a critical factor for outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of computerized physician order entry systems clearly reduces medication prescription errors; however, clinical benefit of computerized physician order entry systems in pediatric or ICU settings has not yet been demonstrated. The quality of the implementation process could be a decisive factor determining overall success or failure.