Search

N Barber, professor of the practice of pharmacy M Schachter, senior lecturer and honorary consultant physician Objective—To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence. Design—Two stage Delphi technique. Subjects—A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers. Main outcome measures—The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error. Results—Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not. Conclusions—Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives. (Quality in Health Care 2000;9:232–237) Key Words: prescribing errors; medication errors; definition of error

Background: Prescribed drugs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease may affect the symptomatic progression of their disease, both positively and negatively. Aim: To examine the effects of drugs on the progression of disease in a representative group of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Methods: Patients with the diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease were recruited from the community. The prescribed drugs taken by 224 patients (mean age 82.3 years) were recorded at initial assessment and then correlated in logistic regression analysis with progression of the disease, defined as an increase of one point or more in the Global Deterioration Scale over the next 12-month period. Results: Patients who were taking antipsychotic drugs and sedatives had a significantly higher risk of deterioration than those who were taking none (odds ratios (ORs) 2.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 6.41) and 2.77 (95% CI 1.14 to 6.73), respectively). Higher risk of deterioration was observed in those who were taking both antipsychotic and sedative drugs together (OR 3.86 (95% CI 1.28 to 11.7). Patients taking drugs licensed for dementia, drugs affecting the renin–angiotensin system and statins had a significantly lower risk of deterioration than those who were not taking any of these drugs (ORs 0.49 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.97), 0.31 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.85) and 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.52), respectively). Conclusion: Our findings have implications for both clinicians and trialists. Most importantly, clinicians should carefully weigh any potential benefits of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, especially in combination, against the risk of increased decline. Researchers need to be aware of the potential of not only licensed drugs for dementia but also drugs affecting the renin–angiotensin system and statins in reducing progression in clinical trials.