Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat

Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Anuradha Joshi [verfasserIn] Jatin Buch [verfasserIn] Nitin Kothari [verfasserIn] Nishal Shah [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research - JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009, 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:10 ; year:2016 ; number:6 ; pages:FC01-FC05

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ008930279

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ008930279
003	DE-627
005	20230307025054.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230225s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ008930279
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Anuradha Joshi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.
650		4	\|a prescription errors
650		4	\|a prescription writing
650		4	\|a private practitioners
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Jatin Buch \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nitin Kothari \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nishal Shah \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research \|d JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 \|g 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 \|w (DE-627)789478048 \|w (DE-600)2775283-5 \|x 0973709X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:10 \|g year:2016 \|g number:6 \|g pages:FC01-FC05
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 10 \|j 2016 \|e 6 \|h FC01-FC05

Indexfelder

author_variant	a j aj j b jb n k nk n s ns
matchkey_str	article:0973709X:2016----::vlainfadrteadoptrzduptetrsrpiniub
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 doi (DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Anuradha Joshi verfasserin aut Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R Jatin Buch verfasserin aut Nitin Kothari verfasserin aut Nishal Shah verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 (DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5 0973709X nnns volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 kostenfrei https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2016 6 FC01-FC05
spelling	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 doi (DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Anuradha Joshi verfasserin aut Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R Jatin Buch verfasserin aut Nitin Kothari verfasserin aut Nishal Shah verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 (DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5 0973709X nnns volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 kostenfrei https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2016 6 FC01-FC05
allfields_unstemmed	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 doi (DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Anuradha Joshi verfasserin aut Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R Jatin Buch verfasserin aut Nitin Kothari verfasserin aut Nishal Shah verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 (DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5 0973709X nnns volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 kostenfrei https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2016 6 FC01-FC05
allfieldsGer	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 doi (DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Anuradha Joshi verfasserin aut Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R Jatin Buch verfasserin aut Nitin Kothari verfasserin aut Nishal Shah verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 (DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5 0973709X nnns volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 kostenfrei https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2016 6 FC01-FC05
allfieldsSound	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 doi (DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Anuradha Joshi verfasserin aut Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice. prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R Jatin Buch verfasserin aut Nitin Kothari verfasserin aut Nishal Shah verfasserin aut In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 (DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5 0973709X nnns volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05 https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 kostenfrei https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2016 6 FC01-FC05
language	English
source	In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05
sourceStr	In Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05 volume:10 year:2016 number:6 pages:FC01-FC05
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Anuradha Joshi @@aut@@ Jatin Buch @@aut@@ Nitin Kothari @@aut@@ Nishal Shah @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	789478048
id	DOAJ008930279
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ008930279</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307025054.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ008930279</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anuradha Joshi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prescription errors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prescription writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">private practitioners</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jatin Buch</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nitin Kothari</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nishal Shah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research</subfield><subfield code="d">JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)789478048</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2775283-5</subfield><subfield code="x">0973709X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:FC01-FC05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">FC01-FC05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Anuradha Joshi
spellingShingle	Anuradha Joshi misc prescription errors misc prescription writing misc private practitioners misc Medicine misc R Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
authorStr	Anuradha Joshi
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)789478048
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	0973709X
topic_title	Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat prescription errors prescription writing private practitioners
topic	misc prescription errors misc prescription writing misc private practitioners misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc prescription errors misc prescription writing misc private practitioners misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc prescription errors misc prescription writing misc private practitioners misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
hierarchy_parent_id	789478048
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)789478048 (DE-600)2775283-5
title	Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ008930279 (DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95
title_full	Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
author_sort	Anuradha Joshi
journal	Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
journalStr	Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Anuradha Joshi Jatin Buch Nitin Kothari Nishal Shah
container_volume	10
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Anuradha Joshi
doi_str_mv	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	evaluation of hand written and computerized out-patient prescriptions in urban part of central gujarat
title_auth	Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
abstract	Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.
abstractGer	Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.
abstract_unstemmed	Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	6
title_short	Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat
url	https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911 https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95 https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X
remote_bool	true
author2	Jatin Buch Nitin Kothari Nishal Shah
author2Str	Jatin Buch Nitin Kothari Nishal Shah
ppnlink	789478048
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911
up_date	2024-07-03T20:59:25.543Z
_version_	1803593046351151104
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ008930279</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307025054.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ008930279</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anuradha Joshi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Prescription order is an important therapeutic transaction between physician and patient. A good quality prescription is an extremely important factor for minimizing errors in dispensing medication and it should be adherent to guidelines for prescription writing for benefit of the patient. Aim: To evaluate frequency and type of prescription errors in outpatient prescriptions and find whether prescription writing abides with WHO standards of prescription writing. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Anand city. Allopathic private practitioners practising at Anand city of different specialities were included in study. Collection of prescriptions was started a month after the consent to minimize bias in prescription writing. The prescriptions were collected from local pharmacy stores of Anand city over a period of six months. Prescriptions were analysed for errors in standard information, according to WHO guide to good prescribing. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive analysis was performed to estimate frequency of errors, data were expressed as numbers and percentage. Results: Total 749 (549 handwritten and 200 computerised) prescriptions were collected. Abundant omission errors were identified in handwritten prescriptions e.g., OPD number was mentioned in 6.19%, patient’s age was mentioned in 25.50%, gender in 17.30%, address in 9.29% and weight of patient mentioned in 11.29%, while in drug items only 2.97% drugs were prescribed by generic name. Route and Dosage form was mentioned in 77.35%-78.15%, dose mentioned in 47.25%, unit in 13.91%, regimens were mentioned in 72.93% while signa (direction for drug use) in 62.35%. Total 4384 errors out of 549 handwritten prescriptions and 501 errors out of 200 computerized prescriptions were found in clinicians and patient details. While in drug item details, total number of errors identified were 5015 and 621 in handwritten and computerized prescriptions respectively. Conclusion: As compared to handwritten prescriptions, computerized prescriptions appeared to be associated with relatively lower rates of error. Since out-patient prescription errors are abundant and often occur in handwritten prescriptions, prescribers need to adapt themselves to computerized prescription order entry in their daily practice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prescription errors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prescription writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">private practitioners</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jatin Buch</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nitin Kothari</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nishal Shah</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research</subfield><subfield code="d">JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited, 2009</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2016), 6, Seite FC01-FC05</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)789478048</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2775283-5</subfield><subfield code="x">0973709X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:FC01-FC05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17896.7911</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/3cd61559ee7e45a6b6509bc2e382cd95</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7911/17896_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2249-782X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0973-709X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">FC01-FC05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3972692

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Evaluation of Hand Written and Computerized Out-Patient Prescriptions in Urban Part of Central Gujarat

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?