DANGEROUS ABBREVIATIONS AND INADEQUATE DOSE DESIGNATIONS IN DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS
JArcelio Benetoli; Athena Faoro Baron; Rafaela Sangalli; Otávia Maria Bianchini; Vanessa Maria Correia Bian; Carolina Justus Buhrer Ferreira Neto

Objective: To analyze the frequency of dangerous abbreviations and inadequate dose designations in two methods of drug prescription: handwritten and electronic.

Methods: Retrospective observational study, with data gathered from 200 prescriptions in the gynecologic and obstetric ward, received in the pharmacy of two non-profit hospitals settled in southern Brazil. The prescriptions were chosen by convenience sampling and the abbreviations and dose descriptions found were not described using a risk scale.

Results: It was observed 91 dangerous abbreviations: 39.6% in handwritten prescriptions and 60.4% in electronic ones. The hazardous abbreviations were observed in units of measurement, administration routes and drug names. The most common dangerous abbreviations were those indicating units or international units, observed in 41.6% of handwritten prescriptions and 94.5% of electronic ones. It was found 486 inadequate dose designations, 99.4% in electronic ones. The major inadequate dose description (96.7%) was numerical dose and unit of measure written together.

Conclusions: The electronic prescription method is safer because it guarantees higher legibility and standardization of parameters. However, both factors analyzed – hazardous abbreviations and inadequate dose designations – were observed with higher frequency in prescription method.

Descriptors: Drug Prescriptions. Medication Errors. Abbreviations as Topic.