corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 9400

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Lesar TS.
Common prescribing errors.
Ann Intern Med 1992 Sep 15; 117:(6):537-8


Abstract:

The incidence of prescribing errors involving drugs available in standard and sustained-action dosage forms during a 1 yr period is reported at a single hospital; all errors were averted before dispensing from the pharmacy. There were 118 instances of inappropriate prescribing during the study period, compared with 19 such errors during a similar study conducted 5 yr previously. The most common type of error was prescribing the standard-release form (or not specifying the controlled-release form) at an inappropriate frequency or dose, and prescribing sustained-release forms when they were not appropriate. The contribution of brand name suffixes to these prescribing errors was discussed, and the need for pharmaceutical companies to consider using brand names that more clearly differentiate between controlled and standard release formulations is stressed.

Keywords:
Delayed-Action Preparations/administration & dosage* Medication Errors* Prescriptions, Drug/standards*

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963