Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Research

The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review

Nde-Eshimuni Salema, Brian G Bell, Kate Marsden, Gill Gookey, Glen Swanwick, Mindy Bassi, Rajnikant Mehta, Nick Silcock, Anthony J Avery and Richard Knox
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2021.0231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0231
Nde-Eshimuni Salema
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2 NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nde-Eshimuni Salema
Brian G Bell
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Brian G Bell
  • For correspondence: brian.bell@nottingham.ac.uk
Kate Marsden
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gill Gookey
2 NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gill Gookey
Glen Swanwick
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mindy Bassi
3 NHS Nottingham City PCT, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajnikant Mehta
4 Birmingham Acute Care Research/Institute of Applied Health Research (BCTU), Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Rajnikant Mehta
Nick Silcock
5 NHS Nottingham City PCT, Wollaton Park Medical Practice, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony J Avery
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
2 NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anthony J Avery
Richard Knox
1 Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University Of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Richard Knox
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. Flowchart showing number of consultations reviewed, prescription items reviewed, and a breakdown of prescribing problems

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Prescribing review definitions
    Definition of prescribing error, suboptimal prescribing, and legal problem as outlined in the PRACtICe study.3List of prescribing problem areas that errors and suboptimal prescribing can be attributed toDrug classification by formulation typeDrug status — how was it prescribed within the consultation?
    Prescribing error: ‘A clinically meaningful prescribing error occurs when, as a result of a prescribing decision or prescription writing process, there is an unintentional significant
    • reduction in the probability of treatment being timely and effective or

    • increase in the risk of harm when compared with generally accepted practice’.

    Suboptimal prescribing: these are prescribing problems that do not fit the above error definition, but represent less than ideal practice.Legal problem: these are prescribing problems that do not fit the above error definitions, but fall outside the legal framework for prescribing (an example would be prescribing for a whole family on a prescription for a single patient).
    • Unnecessary drug

    • Incorrect drug

    • Duplication

    • Allergy error

    • Contraindication error

    • Interaction error

    • Dose or strength error

    • Formulation error

    • Frequency error

    • Timing error

    • Information incomplete

    • Generic or brand name error

    • Omission error relating to failure to prescribe concomitant treatment

    • Inadequate documentation in medical records

    • Quantity error

    • Inadequate review

    • Duration error

    • Monitoring not requested

    • Solid oral

    • Topical

    • Liquid oral

    • Inhalers

    • Eye or ear

    • Vaginal

    • Devices

    • Injections

    • Rectal

    • New acute (NA): a newly prescribed acute medication

    • Re-issued acute (RA): a prescription of an acute medication that had previously prescribed for this patient by any prescriber

    • New Repeat (NR): a prescription of a medication that was simultaneously added to the patient’s ‘repeat prescription’

    • Amended Repeat (AR): a prescription of one of the patient’s ‘repeat medications’ that had been amended during the consultation

    • Re-issued repeat (RR): a prescription of one of the patient’s ‘repeat medications’ that had not been amended during the consultation

    • View popup
    Table 2. Characteristics of practices and GPs involved in the review
    Practice characteristics Practices, n (%)
    Type of practice 
     Dispensing practice8 (80)
     Non-dispensing practice2 (20)
    Clinical system 
     SystmOne5 (50)
     EMIS Web5 (50)
    Formulary availability on clinical system 
     Formulary available5 (50)
     Formulary unavailable5 (50)
    Mean deprivation score based on IMD scorea (SD)16.4 (9.5)
    Mean list size (SD)9392 (2499)
    GPs-in-training characteristics Participants, n (%)
    Sex of GP-in-training 
     Male5 (50)
     Female5 (50)
    Ethnic group 
     White British5 (50)
     British Indian2 (20)
     British Pakistani1 (10)
     Asian (other)1 (10)
     Mixed1 (10)
    Age range, years 
     25–293 (30)
     30–344 (40)
     35–392 (20)
     40–491 (10)
    Date of graduation 
     2004–2009b 5 (50)
     20105 (50)
    Country of graduation 
     UK8 (80)
     Overseas2 (20)
    Stage of training 
     ST21 (10)
     ST39 (90)
    Sex of trainer 
     Male7 (70)
     Female3 (30)
    • IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation. SD = standard deviation. ST = specialty training. aDeprivation score (IMD 2010; figures from 2012) http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/general-practice/data. Higher IMD scores indicate greater relative deprivation.bOne participant each for year 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Proportion of prescriptions reviewed with a prescribing problem by British National Formulary (BNF) chapter, formulation, and drug status
      Items reviewed, n (%) Proportion with an error, n (%) Proportion with suboptimal prescribing, n (%)
    Chapter of the British National Formulary
    Chapter 1: Gastro-intestinal system112 (10.9)5 (4.5)36 (32.1)
    Chapter 2: Cardiovascular system121 (11.8)2 (1.7)15 (12.4)
    Chapter 3: Respiratory system65 (6.3)6 (9.2)22 (33.8)
    Chapter 4: Central nervous system201 (19.6)27 (13.4)53 (26.4)
    Chapter 5: Infections183 (17.8)27 (14.8)65 (35.5)
    Chapter 6: Endocrine system46 (4.5)3 (6.5)25 (54.3)
    Chapter 7: Obstetrics, gynaecology, and urinary-tract disorders39 (3.8)0 (0)11 (28.2)
    Chapter 8: Malignant disease and immunosuppression1 (0.1)0 (0)0 (0)
    Chapter 9: Nutrition and blood9 (0.9)1 (11.1)4 (44.4)
    Chapter 10: Musculoskeletal and joint diseases66 (6.4)4 (6.1)22 (33.3)
    Chapter 11: Eye16 (1.6)3 (18.8)13 (81.3)
    Chapter 12: Ear, nose, and oropharynx40 (3.9)2 (5.0)30 (75.0)
    Chapter 13: Skin125 (12.2)12 (9.6)61 (48.8)
    Chapter 14: Immunological products and vaccines1 (0.1)0 (0)0 (0)
    Chapter 15: Anaesthesia3 (0.3)0 (0)3 (100.0)
    Total 1028 (100.0) 92 (8.9) 360 (35.0)
      Items reviewed, n (%) Proportion with an error, n (%) Proportion with suboptimal prescribing, n (%)
    Formulation type
    Solid oral681 (66.2)44 (6.5)195 (28.6)
    Topical173 (16.8)14 (8.1)92 (53.2)
    Liquid oral68 (6.6)24 (35.3)21 (30.9)
    Inhalers48 (4.7)6 (12.5)20 (41.7)
    Eye or ear30 (2.9)4 (13.3)25 (83.3)
    Vaginal12 (1.2)0 (0)6 (50.0)
    Devices11 (1.1)0 (0)0 (0)
    Injections3 (0.3)0 (0)0 (0)
    Rectal2 (0.2)0 (0)1 (50.0)
    Total 1028 (100.0) 92 (8.9) 360 (35.0)
    Drug status
    New acute (NA)666 (64.8)65 (9.8)271 (40.7)
    Reissued acute (RA)84 (8.2)10 (11.9)34 (40.5)
    New repeat (NR)65 (6.3)1 (1.5)17 (26.2)
    Amended repeat (AR)3 (0.3)0 (0)1 (33.3)
    Reissued repeat (RR)210 (20.4)16 (7.6)37 (17.6)
    Total 1028 (100.0) 92 (8.9) 360 (35.0)
    • View popup
    Table 4. Distribution of prescribing events by classification type as determined by case law
    Prescribing problemItems with an error, n (%)Items with suboptimal prescribing, n (%)
    Unnecessary drug5 (5.4)6 (1.7)
    Incorrect drug7 (7.6)30 (8.3)
    Duplication5 (5.4)13 (3.6)
    Allergy error1 (1.1)0 (0)
    Contraindication error3 (3.3)0 (0)
    Interaction error1 (1.1)0 (0)
    Dose or strength error30 (32.6)39 (10.8)
    Formulation error2 (2.2)15 (4.2)
    Frequency error1 (1.1)2 (0.6)
    Timing error0 (0)15 (4.2)
    Information incomplete24 (26.1)117 (32.5)
    Generic or brand name error0 (0)8 (2.2)
    Omission error relating to failure to prescribe concomitant treatment5 (5.4)7 (1.9)
    Inadequate documentation in medical records3 (3.3)52 (14.4)
    Quantity error3 (3.3)23 (6.4)
    Inadequate review2 (2.2)8 (2.2)
    Duration error0 (0)24 (6.7)
    Monitoring not requested0 (0)1 (0.3)
    Total 92 (100.0) 360 (100.0)

Supplementary Data

  • Bell_BJGPO.2021.0231_Supp.pdf -

    Supplementary material is not copyedited or typeset, and is published as supplied by the author(s). The author(s) retain(s) responsibility for its accuracy.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 6, Issue 3
September 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review
Nde-Eshimuni Salema, Brian G Bell, Kate Marsden, Gill Gookey, Glen Swanwick, Mindy Bassi, Rajnikant Mehta, Nick Silcock, Anthony J Avery, Richard Knox
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2021.0231. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0231

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review
Nde-Eshimuni Salema, Brian G Bell, Kate Marsden, Gill Gookey, Glen Swanwick, Mindy Bassi, Rajnikant Mehta, Nick Silcock, Anthony J Avery, Richard Knox
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2021.0231. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0231
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Patient safety
  • Family medicine
  • Prescribing
  • prescriptions
  • general practice

More in this TOC Section

  • How does decontextualised risk information affect clinicians understanding of risk and uncertainty in primary care diagnosis? A qualitative study of clinical vignettes
  • Declining number of home visits to older adults by GPs: an observational study using data from electronic health records in The Netherlands, 2017–2023
  • What’s been tried: a curated catalogue of efforts to improve access to general practice
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795