Overnight and postcall errors in medication orders

68Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the error rates in medication orders by physicians who were off call, on overnight call, and postcall. Methods: This was a retrospective review of inpatient medication orders, pharmacy records, and resident physician work schedules in a university-affiliated community teaching hospital with residency programs in emergency medicine, family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics, pediatrics, and surgery. The authors calculated error rates, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for physicians during April 2000. Results: In 8,195 medication orders, there were 177 errors (2.16% overall error rate). There was an increased error rate for overnight and postcall orders (2.71%, OR 1.44, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.95) in comparison to orders written by off-call physicians (1.90%). Error rates were significantly higher on the medical/surgical wards during the overnight (3.91%, OR 1.89, 95% CI = 1.22 to 2.92) and postcall (3.41%, OR 1.64, 95% CI = 1.10 to 2.43) periods compared with the off-call (2.11%) period, and postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) physicians had a higher overnight error rate (4.23%, OR 2.28, 95% CI = 1.44 to 3.61). Error rates were also higher on the medical/surgical wards compared with critical care units (2.62% vs. 1.22%, OR 2.17, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.18). The PGY1 physicians had error rates similar to those of the PGY2-5 physicians when off call, but were significantly higher on overnight call (4.23% vs. 0.52%, OR 8.47, 95% CI = 2.00 to 35.82). Conclusions: Medication-ordering error rates were higher for overnight and postcall physicians, particularly on the general medical/surgical wards, and in PGY1 physicians during the overnight period.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hendey, G. W., Barth, B. E., & Soliz, T. (2005). Overnight and postcall errors in medication orders. Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(7), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.02.009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free