目的:为了确定处方错误的频率和类型,评估对世卫组织处方指标的遵守情况,并强调了卡拉奇三级保健医院初级牙科医生目前处方实践的差距,巴基斯坦。
方法:这项横断面研究于2021年1月至2021年3月进行。该研究包括内科医生和初级研究生医学受训者的处方,用于就诊于牙科门诊部的步入式患者。共对466份处方进行了WHO核心药物处方指标评价。处方错误参数是通过研究WHO关于良好处方指南和先前研究的实用手册来准备的。处方错误,包括与医生和患者有关的遗漏错误,连同与药物有关的遗漏错误,也注意到了。统计分析采用SPSS25版。对研究中的定性变量进行描述性分析。
结果:发现每次遇到的平均药物数量为每个处方3.378种药物。接触抗生素的比例为96.99%。引人注目的是,只有16.95%的药物是用通用名称处方的,23.55%的药物属于基本药物清单。大多数人缺乏与开药者有关的宝贵信息,病人,和毒品。如联系方式419(89.9%),日期261(56%),466号医疗执照(100%),诊断409(87.8%),患者453的年龄和地址(97.2%),药物的形式和途径14(3%),药物强度缺失69(14.8%),缺失频率126(27%)和治疗持续时间72(15.4%)。此外,89名(19%)处方者开出了错误的药物剂量,其次是52名(11.1%)的错误药物,43人的力量错误(9.2%),9人的形式错误(1.9%)。在466处方中的1575种药物中,共发现426例(27.04%)药物相互作用,299例(64%)字迹难以辨认。
结论:研究表明,初级牙科医生的处方书写实践低于最佳标准。每次遭遇的平均药物数量很高,有相当比例的涉及抗生素的遭遇。然而,按通用名称和基本药物清单开出的药物比例很低。许多处方错误,遗漏和佣金,被确认,强调需要改进培训和遵守世卫组织关于良好处方做法的准则。实施有针对性的教育计划和更严格的监管措施可以提高处方质量和整体患者安全。
OBJECTIVE: To identify the frequency and types of prescription errors, assess adherence to WHO prescribing indicators, and highlight the gaps in current prescribing practices of Junior dental practitioners in a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2021 to March 2021. The study included the prescriptions by house surgeons and junior postgraduate medical trainees for walk-in patients visiting the dental outpatient department. A total of 466 prescriptions were evaluated for WHO core drug prescribing indicators. The prescription error parameters were prepared by studying the WHO practical manual on guide to good prescribing and previous studies. Prescription errors, including errors of omission related to the physician and the patients, along with errors of omission related to the drug, were also noted. The statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 25. Descriptive analysis was performed for qualitative variables in the study.
RESULTS: The average number of drugs per encounter was found to be 3.378 drugs per prescription. The percentage of encounters with antibiotics was 96.99%. Strikingly, only 16.95% of the drugs were prescribed by generic names and 23.55% of drugs belonged to the essential drug list. The majority lacked valuable information related to the prescriber, patient, and drugs. Such as contact details 419 (89.9%), date 261 (56%), medical license number 466 (100%), diagnosis 409 (87.8%), age and address of patient 453 (97.2%), form and route of drug 14 (3%), missing drug strength 69 (14.8%), missing frequency 126 (27%) and duration of treatment 72 (15.4%). Moreover, the wrong drug dosage was prescribed by 89 (19%) prescribers followed by the wrong drug in 52 (11.1%), wrong strength in 43 (9.2%) and wrong form in 9 (1.9%). Out of 1575 medicines prescribed in 466 prescriptions, 426 (27.04%) drug interactions were found and 299 (64%) had illegible handwriting.
CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that the prescription writing practices among junior dental practitioners are below optimum standards. The average number of drugs per encounter was high, with a significant percentage of encounters involving antibiotics. However, a low percentage of drugs were prescribed by generic name and from the essential drug list. Numerous prescription errors, both omissions and commissions, were identified, highlighting the need for improved training and adherence to WHO guidelines on good prescribing practices. Implementing targeted educational programs and stricter regulatory measures could enhance the quality of prescriptions and overall patient safety.