langold jaemison reedyn
Amit Bolds
The site is secure.
The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Today, reducing medication errors and improving patient safety have become common topics of discussion for the president of the United States, federal and state legislators, the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, health care professionals, and patients. But this is not news to clinical pharmacologists. Improving the judicious use of medications and minimizing adverse drug reactions have always been key areas of research and study for those working in clinical pharmacology. However, added to the older terms of adverse drug reactions and rational therapeutics, the now politically correct expression of medication error has emerged. Focusing on the word error has drawn attention to "prevention" and what can be done to minimize mistakes and improve patient safety. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has several definitions of error, but the one that seems to be most appropriate in the context of medication errors is "an act that through ingnorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done." What should be done is generally known as "the five rights": the right drug, right dose, right route, right time, and right patient. One can make an error of omission (failure to act correctly) or an error of commission (acted incorrectly). This article now summarizes what is currently known about medication errors and translates the information into case studies illustrating common scenarios leading to medication errors. Each case is analyzed to provide insight into how the medication error could have been prevented. "System errors" are described, and the application of failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) is presented to determine the part of the "safety net" that failed. Examples of reengineering the system to make it more "error proof" are presented. An error can be prevented. However, the practice of medicine, pharmacy, and nursing in the hospital setting is very complicated, and so many steps occur from "pen to patient" that there is a lot to analyze. Implementing safer practices requires developing safer systems. Many errors occur as a result of poor oral or written communications. Enhanced communication skills and better interactions among members of the health care team and the patient are essential. The informed consent process should be used as a patient safety tool, and the patient should be warned about material and foreseeable serious side effects and be told what signs and symptoms should be immediately reported to the physician before the patient is forced to go to the emergency department for urgent or emergency care. Last, reducing medication errors is an ongoing process of quality improvement. Faculty systems must be redesigned, and seamless, computerized integrated medication delivery must be instituted by health care professionals adequately trained to use such technological advances. Sloppy handwritten prescriptions should be replaced by computerized physician order entry, a very effective technique for reducing prescribing/ordering errors, but another far less expensive yet effective change would involve writing all drug orders in plain English, rather than continuing to use the elitists' arcane Latin words and shorthand abbreviations that are subject to misinterpretation. After all, effective communication is best accomplished when it is clear and simple.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
This online, self-paced course contains a series of 15 case studies that cover a range of patient pathologies and prescription medicine scenarios that might commonly be seen by a prescribing podiatrist. You will have access to the cases for a 12 week period from registration.
Completing this task is a requirement of the Endorsed Scheduled Medicines (ESM) Program as governed by the Podiatry Board of Australia. The course assessment comprises of multiple choice quiz relating to the 15 prescribing scenarios, with a required pass mark of 80%. Re-assessement or an extension to the course duration will incur a $50 fee.
These case studies, and assessment have been approved and accredited by the Podiatry Board of Australia (2019 - 2022) as part of the educational process for podiatrists seeking endorsed prescribing status in Australia.
Frontiers offers multiple article types to maximize your options for disseminating your work. Some article types, such as those that mention medicine, are section-specific. Only article types that appear in the drop-down menu during the submission process are available for submission to the selected section.
Ensure that any manuscript you submit conforms to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for ethics, as well as to the general Frontiers article requirements. All submitted manuscripts will be checked by plagiarism detection software.
Original Research articles report on primary and unpublished studies. Original Research may also encompass confirming studies and disconfirming results which allow hypothesis elimination, reformulation and/or report on the non-reproducibility of previously published results. Original Research articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000 and may contain no more than 15 Figures/Tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (A-type article) to publish an Original Research article. Original Research articles should have the following format: 1) Abstract, 2) Introduction, 3) Materials and Methods, 4) Results, 5) Discussion.
Systematic Review articles present a synthesis of previous research, and use clearly defined methods to identify, categorize, analyze and report aggregated evidence on a specific topic. Included in this article type are meta-syntheses, meta-analyses, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and systematic reviews with a meta-analysis. Systematic Review articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000 and may contain no more than 15 Figures/Tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (A-type article) to publish a Systematic Review article. Systematic Reviews should: clearly define the research question in terms of population, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study designs (PICOS), and state which reporting guidelines were used in the study. For design and reporting, systematic reviews must conform to the reporting guidelines (e.g., PRISMA, Cochrane, Campbell), and include the PRISMA flow diagram -statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx (if applicable), as well as funding information (if no specific funding to carry out the research, please state so). Systematic Reviews should have the following format: 1) Abstract, 2) Introduction, 3) Methods (including study design; participants; interventions; comparators; systematic review protocol; search strategy; data sources; study sections and data extraction; data analysis), 4) Results (including a flow diagram of the studies retrieved for the review; study selection and characteristics; synthesized findings; assessment of risk of bias), 5) Discussion (including summary of main findings; limitations; conclusions). Systematic Reviews must not include unpublished material (unpublished/original data, submitted manuscripts, or personal communications) and may be rejected in review or reclassified, at a significant delay, if found to include such content.
Methods articles present either a new or established method, protocol, or technique that is of significant interest in the field. Methods articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000 and may contain no more than 15 Figures/Tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (A-type article) to publish a Methods article. Method articles should have the following format: 1) Abstract, 2) Introduction (outlining the protocol and its possible applications), 3) Materials and Equipment (including a list of reagents/ materials and/or equipment required; formulation of any solutions where applicable), 4) Methods (including objectives and validation of the method; step-by-step procedures; timing of each step or related series of steps; pause points; example(s) of application and effectiveness; details of precision/ accuracy and limits of detection or quantification, where applicable) , 5) (Anticipated) Results (describing and illustrating with figures, where possible, the expected outcome of the protocol; advantages, limitations, possible pitfalls and artifacts and any troubleshooting measures to counteract them), 6) Discussion. Any analytical methods applied to the data generated by the protocol must be referenced or described. Results must be replicable.
Review articles cover topics that have seen significant development or progress in recent years, with comprehensive depth and a balanced perspective. Reviews should present a complete overview of the state of the art (and should not merely summarize the literature), as well as discuss the following: 1) Different schools of thought or controversies, 2) Fundamental concepts, issues, and problems, 3) Current research gaps, 4) Potential developments in the field. Review articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000 and may contain no more than 15 Figures/Tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (A-type article) to publish a Review article. Review articles should have the following format: 1) Abstract, 2) Introduction, 3) Subsections relevant for the subject, 4) Discussion. Review articles must not include unpublished material (unpublished/original data, submitted manuscripts, or personal communications) and may be rejected in review or reclassified, at a significant delay, if found to include such content.
c01484d022