IntroductionPrescribing errors are a principal cause of preventable harm in healthcare. This study aims to establish a systematic approach to analysing prescribing-related adverse incident reports, in order to elucidate the characteristics and contributing factors of common prescribing errors and target multifaceted quality improvement initiatives.MethodsAll prescribing-related adverse incident reports submitted across one NHS board over 12 months were selected. Incidents involving commonly implicated drugs (involved in ≥10 incidents) underwent analysis to establish likely underlying causes using Reason’s Model of Accident Causation.Results330 prescribing-related adverse incident reports were identified. Commonly implicated drugs were insulin (10% of incidents), gentamicin (7%), co-amoxiclav (5%) and amoxicillin (5%). The most prevalent error types were prescribing amoxicillin when contraindicated due to allergy (5%); prescribing co-amoxiclav when contraindicated due to allergy (5%); prescribing the incorrect type of insulin (3%); and omitting to prescribe insulin (3%). Error-producing factors were identified in 86% of incidents involving commonly implicated drugs. 53% of incidents involved error-producing factors related to the working environment; 38% involved factors related to the healthcare team; and 37% involved factors related to the prescriber.DiscussionThis study establishes that systematic analysis of adverse incident reports can efficiently identify the characteristics and contributing factors of common prescribing errors, in a manner useful for targeting quality improvement. Furthermore, this study produced a number of salient findings. First, a narrow range of drugs were implicated in the majority of incidents. Second, a small number of error types were highly recurrent. Lastly, a range of contributing factors were evident, with those related to the working environment contributing to the majority of prescribing errors analysed.

Introduction As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, outpatient consultations in National Health Service Lanarkshire were conducted using various forms of teleconsultation. A qualitative study was undertaken to ascertain how senior medical students valued the experience of outpatient teleconsultations in comparison to face-to-face consultations during the pandemic. Methods Anonymised, voluntary surveys were emailed to all medical students who attended clinical placements in specialties utilising teleconsultations. Participants were asked to compare their experience of and perceived value of virtual consultants to face-to-face consultations. Thematic and statistical analysis was performed on the collected data. Results Participants unanimously agreed face-to-face consultations enabled learning, with 71.4% (n = 7) having similar experiences in video consultations if a senior was physically present beside them. Video consultation, when the senior clinician was also present virtually, was deemed useful to a lesser extent (66.7%, n = 6). Only half (57.1%, n = 14) valued the learning from telephone consultations. Qualitative analysis revealed that although face to face was the preferred consultation style, there was useful learning gained in all modalities. Students appreciated discussion with senior clinicians to facilitate learning and valued involvement in the consultation through history taking, especially in teleconsultations. Discussion Teleconsultation was an effective learning tool for medical students during the coronavirus pandemic, which preserved student exposure to patients during lockdown. This study is optimistic that widespread incorporation of teleconsultation, in all modality, has the ability to support students’ clinical exposure and learning, which is becoming increasingly limited as medical student numbers continue to rise and with the ongoing effects of the pandemic.