Prescribing error is not a problem exclusive to the hospital setting, as 4.9 % of prescriptions written in general practice, in the UK, contain an error. Doctors in their second year of postgraduate training (F2s) were found to have the highest error rate at 10.3 %, followed by doctors in their first year of postgraduate training (F1s) at 8.4 % and the reasons for this are yet to be explored fully.
Foundation doctors were responsible for the highest error rates, and unsurprisingly performed the majority of prescribing. Researchers found a mean error rate of 8.9 % across all grades of doctors. The EQUIP study, highlighted the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors by foundation doctors in the UK. Prescribing errors can occur during either of these processes and efforts to maintain a high standard of prescribing are essential.
It has been recognised that the process of prescribing does not just entail putting pen to paper, but originates from the therapeutic decision to use a drug in clinical practice. Despite its obvious importance and the frequency at which prescribing is performed, it remains an error-prone process, which can compromise patient safety. Prescribing medicines is one of the most common and important forms of therapeutic intervention made by doctors in both the primary and secondary care setting. There should be standardisation of safe prescribing training provisions, particularly in the induction period and for F2 doctors. There appears to be a lack of emphasis on the training of F2 doctors in practical safe prescribing compared with F1 doctors. Emerging themes from qualitative data included, recognition of medical education as a continuum, importance of working relationships with pharmacists and neglect of F2s. 80 % of F1s ( n = 55) had a practical prescribing session during induction versus 27 % of F2s ( n = 15). 87 % of F1s received dedicated training in safe prescribing at their Trust induction ( n = 60) in comparison to 49 % of F2s ( n = 27). Trainees: A total of 124 foundation trainees (7.2 %) responded (69 F1s and 55 F2s). By the end of the foundation year, 6 NHS Trusts had provided at least one dedicated practical prescribing session for F1s compared with 2 NHS Trusts for F2s. Of the 9 NHS Trusts that offered safe prescribing training in their induction programme, 5 included a practical prescribing session. Trainers: 10 Prescribing Leads (67 %) responded. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to prescribing training Leads at 15 NHS Hospital Trusts. MethodsĪ web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all 1762 foundation doctors in the South Thames Foundation School (STFS) region.
The aim of this study was to determine the training provisions in practical safe prescribing for foundation doctors in NHS hospitals located in the South Thames region.