Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T16:50:22.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving prescription quality in an in-patient mental health unit: three cycles of clinical audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Priti Ved
Affiliation:
Coventry Teaching Primary Care Trust, The Caludon Centre, Coventry
Tim Coupe
Affiliation:
Coventry Teaching Primary Care Trust, The Caludon Centre, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2TE, email: tim.coupe@uhcw.nhs.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and Method

We undertook three cycles of clinical audit of prescription charts to improve the quality of the prescriptions written in an in-patient unit. Pharmacy and medical staff reviewed a total of 1466 prescriptions on 242 prescription charts against local guidelines and provided feedback to medical staff. The pharmacist also regularly reviewed prescription charts on the wards between audits.

Results

After three cycles of audit, 99.5% of prescriptions written were legible. The recording of drug allergies, section 58 status and patient age remained poor.

Clinical Implications

A combination of clinical audit and continual pharmacist review of prescription charts can improve the quality of prescriptions written by medical staff in an in-patient unit.

Type
Original papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007

Prescription writing is a basic clinical skill for all doctors, but errors in prescriptions are believed to be one of the most common forms of medical error. Prescription errors may lead to harm in a number of ways, including sub-therapeutic dosage, potential overdose or unintended polypharmacy. This type of error may occur for a number of reasons: some relatively complex, such as short-comings in medical training, and others more mundane, such as fatigue, interruptions, or being asked to cover unfamiliar patients (Reference Dean, Barber and ScachterDean et al, 2000). One study of prescriptions in a psychiatric unit for older people found that 20% were illegible and one-third contained missing information (Reference Nirodi and MitchellNirodi & Mitchell, 2002). Clinical audit is a commonly used quality improvement process which measures clinical practice against agreed standards and introduces change where this is indicated (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2002). Coventry Teaching Primary Care Trust published guidelines for the completion of prescriptions in May 2001. We used a series of clinical audits in the period June 2001 to February 2006 in an attempt to improve the quality of prescriptions written at the Caludon Centre, a 70-bed in-patient unit in Coventry.

Method

A prospective clinical audit was based on the trust prescription writing guidelines. This was then used by the pharmacist and junior medical staff to conduct three cycles of prospective clinical audit of the prescription records of patients admitted to adult wards at the Caludon Centre. The first audit was completed in June 2001, the second in March 2004 and the third in February 2006. Minor adjustments were made to the audit tool in 2004 and the size of the 2006 audit was increased by the inclusion of a newly opened ward. Results were fed back to trust staff at postgraduate medical education meetings. The pharmacist also conducted regular review of the prescription charts on the wards between the audits and highlighted errors to the appropriate medical team.

Results

A total of 1466 prescriptions on 242 prescription charts were reviewed during the three cycles of audit, 67 records in 2001, 57 in 2004 and 118 in 2006. The recording of patient information on prescription charts improved after the first cycle of audit but declined after the second (Table 1). Although overall legibility improved, the recording of drug allergies, section 58 status and age remained especially poor throughout the audit period.

Table 1. Recording of patient information on drug records

Percentage recorded
2001 (n=67) 2004 (n=57) 2006 (n=118)
Written in indelible ink 96 97
Full name 96 98
Ward 55 26 29
Date of birth 98 94
Consultant 60 26 31
Hospital number 79 93 88
Legal status 55 63 42
Date of admission 36 9 16
Age 21 17 10
Section 58 status 5 2 3
Allergies box completed 15 19 10
Legible 93 95 98

The quality of regular prescriptions showed a consistent improvement over the audit period (Table 2). Prescription cancellations improved over the audit period, but the recording of frequency to be given remained poor.

Table 2. Completeness of regular prescriptions

Percentage recorded
2001 (n=199) 2004 (n=238) 2006 (n=495)
Written in indelible ink 98 98 96
Generic drug name used 96 92 95
Printed in block capitals 48 42 65
Drug name in full 98 99 99
Dose in acceptable abbreviations 90 95 98
Frequency given 41 47 57
Route in acceptable abbreviations 97 98 90
Start date given 100 99 100
Signed for by prescriber 100 100 100
Administration times circled 97 100 99
Alterations rewritten 90 66 100
Cancellations completed correctly 21 75 92
Legible 93 99 99

The overall quality of ‘as required’ prescriptions also showed consistent improvement (Table 3). Recording of reason for administration improved, as did prescription cancellations.

Table 3. Completeness of ‘as required’ prescriptions

Percentage recorded
2001 (n=119) 2004 (n=141) 2006 (n=274)
Written in indelible ink 93 96 95
Generic drug name used 96 96 96
Printed in block capitals 53 40 56
Drug name in full 99 100 100
Dose in acceptable abbreviations 95 95 99
Frequency given 87 90 81
Route in acceptable abbreviations 94 99 96
Start date given 99 99 99
Signed for by prescriber 98 99 100
Reason for administration 52 64 74
Alterations rewritten 93 100 100
Cancellations completed correctly 40 50 73
Legible 95 97 100

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that clinical audit and feedback combined with pharmacist intervention at ward level can improve the quality of prescriptions in an in-patient setting. The overall legibility of prescriptions reviewed improved to a point where 99.5% of all prescriptions reviewed were considered legible. Specific aspects of prescription writing that had been poor in 2001 also showed improvement, most noticeably the proper cancelling of ‘as required’ and regular prescriptions. However, some basic aspects of prescription writing, such as using block capitals for drug names, only improved slightly and the recording of drug allergies remained very poor throughout the audit period. This is a cause for concern, although the actual risk it represents is difficult to assess. Although drug allergies are believed to occur in 14–17% of all patients, the most common are to antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Reference Vervloet and DurhamVervloet & Durham, 1998), both of which are not widely prescribed in our unit. However, recording drug allergies remains the responsibility of the prescriber and other audits have shown allergy recording rates of 75% or more are achievable (Reference Tuthill, Wood and CavellTuthill et al, 2004).

Continuous quality assurance requires ongoing data collection, review of that data and action. Various strategies have been suggested to improve the quality and safety of hospital prescribing, including systems analysis (Reference Hronek and BleichHronek & Bleich, 2002), electronic prescribing systems (Reference Fowlie, Bennie and JardineFowlie et al, 2000) and applying human error theory (Reference Dean, Barber and ScachterDean et al, 2000). Barber et al (Reference Barber, Rawlins and Dean Franklin2003) advocate a three-part strategy aimed at reducing prescribing errors. This is based on improving individual prescriber's competence, controlling the prescribing environment and changing organisational culture to allow open discussion of errors. Clinical pharmacists can have a positive impact on prescribing practice, outcomes and resource use (Reference Finley, Crimson and RushFinley et al, 2003), and we believe that clinical pharmacist review on the wards was the most effective element of this audit. Medicines are given because it is believed that the benefits will outweigh any associated risks, but trusts need appropriate controls to ensure that these risks are minimised (Healthcare Commission, 2007). The involvement of clinical pharmacy staff in caring for in-patients is a service that provides such controls and safety measures.

Declaration of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs Padmapriya Musunuri and Karthik Modem for help with data collection.

References

Barber, N., Rawlins, M. & Dean Franklin, B. (2003) Reducing prescribing error: competence, control and culture. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 12, 129132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, B., Barber, N., Scachter, M., et al (2000) Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: why do they occur? Pharmaceutical Journal, 265, 17.Google Scholar
Finley, P., Crimson, L. & Rush, J. (2003) Evaluating the impact of pharmacists in mental health: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy, 23, 16341644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowlie, F., Bennie, M., Jardine, G., et al (2000) Evaluation of an electronic prescribing and administration system in a British hospital. Pharmaceutical Journal, 265, 16.Google Scholar
Healthcare Commission (2007) Talking about medicines: The management of medicines in trusts providing mental health services. http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/Talking_about_medicines_mental_health_trust_report_200701113216.pdf Google Scholar
Hronek, C. & Bleich, M. (2002) The less than perfect medication system: a systems approach to improvement. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 16, 1722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2002) Principles for Best Practice in Clinical Audit. Radcliffe Medical Press.Google Scholar
Nirodi, A. & Mitchell, A. (2002) The quality of psychotropic drug prescribing in patients in psychiatric units for the elderly. Aging and Mental Health, 6, 191196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuthill, A., Wood, K. & Cavell, G. (2004) An audit of drug allergy documentation on inpatient drug charts. Pharmacy World and Science, 26, a48.Google Scholar
Vervloet, D. & Durham, S. (1998) Adverse drug reactions. BMJ, 316, 15111514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Recording of patient information on drug records

Figure 1

Table 2. Completeness of regular prescriptions

Figure 2

Table 3. Completeness of ‘as required’ prescriptions

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.