Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:32:20.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing Improvement in Prescription Writing Quality in Adult Male and Female Wards of Psychiatry Department, Lahore, Pakistan: Three Cycles of Clinical Audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Aazeen Khan
Affiliation:
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Umaira Arif
Affiliation:
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Aamir Shahzad*
Affiliation:
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Sania Mumtaz Tahir
Affiliation:
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Roop Kiran Khan
Affiliation:
King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

  1. 1. To measure the extent to which medication orders in inpatient prescription charts conform to the section in BNF (British National Formulary) on prescription writing.

  2. 2. To implement changes with the intention of improving prescriptions and administration records.

Methods

Prescription charts of patients admitted in adult male and female psychiatry ward were analysed in three cycles, (1 September to 20 October 2022, then 1st December to 31st 2022 and then: 1st January 2023 to 28th February 2023) which added up to a total of 431, 170 and 490 prescriptions in respective cycles.

Each drug prescription was examined to see if it met the standards outlined in BNF.

Percentage of prescriptions meeting each standard was calculated in each cycle.

First Cycle was followed by presentation of BNF guidelines of prescription writing on 7th December 2022 and copies of those BNF guidelines were placed at both male and female nursing counters. After 1 month, a short re-audit was done to assess the improvement which was satisfactory but this audit's results were not presented. Lastly, after one year of presentation of BNF guidelines in the department, two months of prescription charts were re-audited in cycle 3.

Results

  • Cycle 1: Initial evaluation revealed significant discrepancies in prescription accuracy and adherence to administration protocols. Key areas for improvement were identified and discussed with the postgraduate residents.

  • Cycle 2: Following the implementation of targeted interventions, a re-evaluation showed measurable improvements in prescription accuracy and compliance with administration protocols. However, areas for further improvement were still identified, particularly in the documentation of prescription changes.

  • Cycle 3: The final cycle demonstrated further improvements in prescription practices, with a significant reduction in discrepancies and errors.

  • Legibility remained high across all cycles, with a slight improvement in Cycle 3.

  • The use of generic drug names saw a remarkable increase from 40.6% in Cycle 1 to 84.69% in Cycle 3, indicating a strong adherence to best practices.

  • Block letters usage improved significantly from 17% in Cycle 1 to 71.42% in Cycle 3, enhancing the clarity of prescriptions.

  • The practice of providing a start date saw near-perfect compliance by Cycle 3, increasing from 82.8% in Cycle 1 to 99.18%.

Other findings were similar as well.

Conclusion

The audit successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of clinical audits in improving prescription quality in male and female adult wards. It highlighted the effectiveness of the interventions and the importance of continuous monitoring and feedback.

Type
5 Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (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 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.