September 16, 2025

Evaluating the impact of an indication-based, patient-specific prescribing tool on prescribing errors in paediatrics: a non-randomised, before-and-after study.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Discussion

Non-randomised study shows an 83% reduction in prescribing errors for children, indicating the tool's value in clinical settings.

The overall prescribing error rate with the intervention was 1.2%, significantly lower than 7.14% for control orders.
In the general paediatric ward, error rates decreased from 9.1% to 1.1%, indicating substantial improvements in safety.
This non-randomised study involved a total of 1808 medication orders, assessing both standard and intervention practices.
Findings suggest that while errors still occurred, they were due to prescriber deviation rather than flaws in the prescribing tool.

Feather et al. (2025) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 16, 2025

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Non-randomised study shows an 83% reduction in prescribing errors for children, indicating the tool's value in clinical settings.

The overall prescribing error rate with the intervention was 1.2%, significantly lower than 7.14% for control orders.
In the general paediatric ward, error rates decreased from 9.1% to 1.1%, indicating substantial improvements in safety.
This non-randomised study involved a total of 1808 medication orders, assessing both standard and intervention practices.
Findings suggest that while errors still occurred, they were due to prescriber deviation rather than flaws in the prescribing tool.

Feather et al. (2025) studied this question.

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark