PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Nde-Eshimuni Salema
AU  - Brian G Bell
AU  - Kate Marsden
AU  - Gill Gookey
AU  - Glen Swanwick
AU  - Mindy Bassi
AU  - Rajnikant Mehta
AU  - Nick Silcock
AU  - Anthony J Avery
AU  - Richard Knox
TI  - The frequency and nature of prescribing problems by GPs-in-training (REVISiT): a retrospective review
AID  - 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0231
DP  - 2022 Sep 01
TA  - BJGP Open
PG  - BJGPO.2021.0231
VI  - 6
IP  - 3
4099  - http://bjgpopen.org/content/6/3/BJGPO.2021.0231.short
4100  - http://bjgpopen.org/content/6/3/BJGPO.2021.0231.full
SO  - BJGP Open2022 Sep 01; 6
AB  - Background Prescribing errors can cause significant morbidity and occur in about 5% of prescriptions in English general practices.Aim To describe the frequency and nature of prescribing problems in a cohort of GPs-in-training to determine whether they need additional prescribing support.Design & setting A primary care pharmacist undertook a retrospective review of prescriptions issued between 9 October 2014 and 11 March 2015 by 10 GPs in their final year of training from 10 practices in England.Method Pre-existing standards and expert panel discussion were used to classify the appropriateness of prescribing. Data were imported into Stata (version 13) to perform descriptive analysis. An individualised report highlighting prescribing errors, suboptimal prescribing, and areas of good practice identified during the review was shared with the GPs-in-training and their trainers. This report was used to guide discussions during the GP-in-training’s feedback session.Results A total of 1028 prescription items were reviewed from 643 consultations performed by 10 GPs-in-training. There were 92 prescribing errors (8.9%) and 360 episodes of suboptimal prescribing (35.0%). The most common types of error concerned medication dosages (n = 30, 32.6% of errors).Conclusion Personalised review of prescribing revealed an error rate higher than recorded in a previous similar study mainly comprising GPs who had completed postgraduate training, and a substantially higher rate of suboptimal prescribing. A larger intervention study is now required to evaluate the effectiveness of receiving a personalised review of prescribing, and to assess its impact on patient safety.