No abstract

Background Prescribing errors are common and a known cause of adverse patient outcomes. Junior doctors are responsible for the majority of prescribing, and may benefit from educational interventions. Aim To assess the effect of (1) targeted pharmacist‐led feedback and education, and (2) an e‐learning prescribing module, on prescription writing error rates by junior doctors in the inpatient medical setting. Methods We undertook a cluster randomised trial in 2014 involving 16 prescribers in four general medical units of an Australian tertiary hospital. One unit was randomised to prescribing feedback and targeted education by a clinical pharmacist; another unit was randomised to an e‐learning intervention on safe prescribing; and two units were randomised to no intervention. Data were collected via daily audit of paper medication charts. A prescription writing error was deemed to have occurred if patient or prescriber details were incomplete, or if a medication order was illegible, incomplete or incorrect. Statistical analysis was by Chi‐squared comparison of each unit's error rate pre‐intervention to post‐intervention. Results Prescription writing errors were significantly reduced in the pharmacist education group, from 0.58 errors/total orders pre‐intervention to 0.37 errors/total orders post‐intervention (p < 0.001). Conversely, an increase in the error rate of the control group was observed from 0.49 to 0.59 errors/total orders (p < 0.001), and to a lesser extent in the e‐learning group from 0.58 to 0.63 errors/total orders (p = 0.025). Conclusions Regular and targeted pharmacist feedback and education is effective at reducing prescription writing errors, while the effect of e‐learning tools remains unclear.

It is not known whether electronic-learning (e-learning) is effective for educating hospital inpatients about complex medications such as warfarin. This prospective randomised controlled study compared pharmacist-facilitated e-learning with standard pharmacist-delivered face-to-face education on patients’ or their unpaid carers’ knowledge of warfarin and satisfaction with warfarin education as well as the time that was spent by pharmacists in delivering warfarin education. Adult English-speaking patients (or their carers) who had been prescribed warfarin were randomised to receive standard pharmacist face-to-face education (control) or an e-learning module on a tablet device facilitated by a pharmacist (intervention). All of the participants received written warfarin information and were presented with the opportunity to ask any questions that they may have had to a pharmacist. Fifty-four participants completed the study (27 per group). The participants who received e-learning had median correct Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) test scores of 85% compared to 80% for standard education (p = 0.14). The participants in both groups were satisfied with the information that they received. There was a trend towards pharmacists spending less time on warfarin education for the e-learning group than in the standard education group (25.5 vs. 33 min, respectively, p = 0.05). Education delivered via pharmacist-facilitated e-learning was non-inferior in terms of patient or carer warfarin knowledge compared to standard pharmacist-delivered education.

A national random sample of 855 Australian general practitioners was surveyed about their belief in the eVectiveness of cancer screening tests in reducing premature mortality. Responses were then compared with scientific evidence of eVectiveness for each test. 92% of respondents believed mammography to be eVective compared with only 38% for faecal occult blood testing, despite comparable evidence of eVectiveness from randomised controlled trials. Seven tests outranked their belief in faecal occult blood testing, despite weaker evidence. Further eVorts are required to align general practitioners' beliefs better with the evidence. (J Med Screen 1998;5:67-68)

Background Dispensed prescription medicine labels (prescription labels) are important information sources supporting safe and appropriate medicines use. Objective To develop and user test patient‐centred prescription label formats. Methods Five stages: developing 12 labels for four fictitious medicines of varying dosage forms; diagnostic user testing of labels (Round 1) with 40 consumers (each testing three labels); iterative label revision, and development of Round 2 labels (n = 7); user testing of labels (Round 2) with 20 consumers (each testing four labels); labelling recommendations. Evaluated labels stated the active ingredient and brand name, using various design features (eg upper case and bold). Dosing was expressed differently across labels: frequency of doses/day, approximate times of day (eg morning), explicit times (eg 7 to 9 AM), and/or explicit dosing interval. Participants’ ability to find and understand medicines information and plan a dosing schedule were assessed. Results Participants demonstrated satisfactory ability to find and understand the dosage for all label formats. Excluding active ingredient and dosing schedule, 14/19 labels (8/12 in Round 1; 6/7 in Round 2) met industry standard on performance. Participants’ ability to correctly identify the active ingredient varied, with clear medicine name sign‐posting enabling all participants evaluating these labels to find and understand the active ingredient. When planning a dosing schedule, doses were correctly spaced if the label stated a dosing interval, or frequency of doses/day. Two‐thirds planned appropriate dosing schedules using a dosing table. Conclusions Effective prescription label formatting and sign‐posting of active ingredient improved communication of information on labels, potentially supporting safe medicines use. Patient and Public Involvement Consumers actively contributed to the development of dispensed prescription medicine labels. Feedback from consumers following the first round was incorporated in revisions of the labels for the next round. Patient and public involvement in this study was critical to the development of readable and understandable dispensed prescription medicine labels.