This paper examines the persistent problem of prescription errors in healthcare settings, focusing on two primary causes: the use of unsafe medical abbreviations and incomplete or illegible prescription documentation. Drawing on data from the Institute of Medicine and a large-scale study of over 38,000 prescriptions, the paper quantifies the scope of the problem and reviews regulatory responses from the FDA and other organizations. It also evaluates the promise of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) as a technological solution, weighing its demonstrated benefits against slow adoption rates and institutional resistance, including opposition from the American Medical Association to mandated implementation.
The paper demonstrates effective use of multiple source types — government agencies, academic studies, news reporting, and direct quotations from practitioners and policymakers — to build a multidimensional argument. This synthesis of authoritative sources at different levels (statistical, institutional, and anecdotal) strengthens the paper's credibility across its main claims.
The paper opens by establishing the scale of the problem with mortality data, then narrows to specific causes (abbreviations, incomplete prescriptions). It surveys institutional and regulatory responses before presenting quantitative evidence from a peer-reviewed prescription audit. The final section pivots to e-prescribing as a solution, addressing both its potential and barriers to adoption, and closes with a brief editorial conclusion urging faster action.
The whole point of going to a healthcare provider is to get better — not to become more ill, or even die, because someone misread a medication prescription. Unfortunately, that is too often the case. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, over 7,000 deaths occur each year due to medication errors. These errors can happen anywhere in the medication-use system, from prescribing to administering a drug, across a variety of settings such as hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing homes, and home care services.
As a result, in 2006 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched a nationwide health professional education campaign to reduce the number of common but preventable medication mistakes caused by unclear medical abbreviations. This announcement came several years after a similar statement by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, which had been advocating for error-free prescriptions for at least 25 years. It appears that even more can be done to improve this situation, given the technology currently available.
Eliminating dangerous abbreviations is not a new suggestion. Many organizations — including the Institute of Medicine, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention, and the American Hospital Association — have long warned that the use of inappropriate abbreviations may lead to confusion and communication failures. Why it took so long for the FDA to push these changes is a legitimate question.
Some abbreviations are acceptable because they do not carry major consequences if misread, but a number of abbreviations can seriously affect patient well-being if misunderstood. Those deemed unsafe include: (1) U for units; (2) µg for microgram; (3) TIW for three times a week; (4) the degree symbol for hour; (5) trailing zeros after a decimal point; and (6) the absence of leading zeros before a decimal point.
Now that these standards are in place, ongoing communication is essential to introduce, reinforce, and sustain awareness among healthcare providers. A single notification is not sufficient. Reminders should appear on all prescription-related materials, and the most problematic terms should be prominently displayed on all prescription pads. Officials from Kaiser Permanente Santa Teresa Medical Center, for example, retrained staff on the importance of adhering to the "Five Rights of Medication Administration" — right dose, right medication, right time, right patient, and right administration route (oral, intravenous, injection) (Sullivan, 2005).
Abbreviation misuse represents only one category of prescription error. In a study by Shah, Aslam, and Avery (2001) of approximately 38,000 prescriptions written by 23 doctors, a wide range of errors was identified:
715 prescriptions (25%) had no directions; 510 (18%) did not mention the prescribed item, typically on a repeat prescription; 321 (11%) contained directions that were incomplete, illegible, or simply written as "as directed"; 306 (11%) provided more than one month's supply on separate repeat prescriptions without the patient's request; 260 (9%) were missing strength information where a product existed in various strengths and no guidance was available in the British National Formulary; 229 (8%) had a prescribed quantity that was unclear, missing, or excessive; and 132 (5%) were missing the prescriber's signature. An additional 100 errors involved prescribing medicines that were no longer available, incorrect medicines due to illegible handwriting, missing dates, or incorrect strength.
Due to the number of deaths that occur as a result of prescription errors, and the relative ease of transitioning to electronic prescriptions, the resistance expressed by the AMA is disconcerting. How difficult is it to adopt a digital system when lives are at stake?
Preece, J. F., Ashford, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1984). Writing all prescriptions by computer. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 34, 654–657.
Romano, M. (2002). Patient-safety awards abound, but do they represent real progress in the fight against medical errors, or are they just for show? Modern Healthcare. Retrieved from http://www.modernhealthcare.com/
Rovner, J. (2007). Congress looks to require electronic prescriptions. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17170228
Shah, N., Aslam, M., & Avery, A. (2001). Survey of prescription errors in general practice. Pharmaceutical Journal, 267, 861–864.
Sullivan, K. (2005, November 5). New procedures at 2 sites where fatal mistakes occurred. San Francisco Chronicle, p. B5.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.