Prescription writing- The mistakes we make: A Prospective Study

Aims and Objective: This study aimed to describe the quality of prescriptions by Private Practitioners for legibility and accuracy. Materials and Methods: Three hundred prescriptions of Private Practitioners were taken for assessment of legibility and accuracy. The prescriptions were assessed by two investigators and a third adjudicated in case of disagreement. For assessment of handwriting, a scoring method was used. Other parameters which were assessed were: spelling of medicine names, formulation, drugs strength and dosage form, use of nonspecific abbreviations, use of archaic terminologies such as OD, HS etc. and use of capital letters. The samples were collected over a period of 7 days. The samples were then analyzed for their content based on an ideal prescription format and the results were tabulated. The collected data were entered and analyzed using Statistical software package (SPSS version 14) and the results were presented as percentage. Results were analyzed and presented using tables, and pie charts. Results: Three hundred prescriptions of Private Practitioners were taken for assessment of legibility and accuracy and Clarity of dose. Results were expressed in percentages. Spellings of Medicine names in all prescriptions were incorrect (79%). In formulations and drugs strength not mentioned in the prescriptions (81%) of cases Abbreviations of names of drugs were written by 40.6% of prescribers. 72% of prescribers preferred to use archaic terminology and only 69% of the prescribers had written the prescriptions in capital letters. Nearly 39.6% of the prescribers did not put the leading zero where applicable. Legibility Clarity of instructions and Clarity of dose of prescriptions was clear but requires effort to read which constituted about 93%, 80.3 and90% respectively (scored 1 or 2). The findings of the study suggest that most of the prescriptions given are woefully inadequate in content. Conclusions: A major percentages (72%) of Private Practitioners using the archaic terminologies which usually cause confusion to the dispensers and consumers. Use of capital letter while preparing a prescription, avoiding use of abbreviations and archaic terminologies as well as using the technology such as printing the prescription may ensure a quality service to the consumer. It can be concluded that a clear policy about the standard of prescriptions and periodic internal monitoring is the answer for quality prescriptions. To have better prescriptions and better health care facilities a computerized format would be the answer.