Recurring concern

Failure to reliably detect discrepancies between prescribed and administered medication

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 25 Jun 2015•Latest report 25 Nov 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of controls intended to compare, reconcile, flag or escalate discrepancies between prescribed medication and medication recorded as administered, including discrepancies during discharge or care transitions and failures to detect differences between prescription and administration records.

Not included

  • Excludes general medication reconciliation, prescribing, administration or discharge-medication failures where no discrepancy-detection or checking failure is identified.
  • Excludes failures to act on a discrepancy after it has been reliably detected when the detection process itself was adequate.
  • Excludes medication dosage, quantity, supply or adherence concerns that do not involve detecting a discrepancy between prescribed and administered medication.
  • Excludes generic record-keeping, staffing or communication deficiencies unless they directly impair medication-discrepancy detection.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
3

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2021

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
9

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Good Hope Hospital1
John Radcliffe Hospital1
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Saif Mubeen Hussain · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Saif Mubeen Hussain died at John Radcliffe Hospital on 10 June 2021 after being admitted following an incident in Bracknell, Berkshire, on 3 June 2021; the recorded cause of death was polytrauma. During his transfer between units, he was administered a Heparin infusion at almost eight times the prescribed rate. The report identified concerns about unfamiliarity with anticoagulants, inadequate double-checking, the Guardrails system being switched off, differences between prescription and administration rates not being flagged, and the use of separate hospital computer systems.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a system for flagging discrepancies between drug prescription and administration

    Wider context from the report

    “4. Adopting a system of flagging up where prescription and administration of drugs is different. ”

    Source location

    Saif Mubeen Hussain · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Include automated drug prescription-to-administration specifications in the future single clinical system procurement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Trust accepts the need to strengthen the decision support tools within the current clinical systems. We are looking to further improve the embedded system rules regarding drug prescription and administration.”

    Source location

    2021-0399-Response-from-Oxford-University-Hospitals_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 November 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce new infusion pumps across all sites with bi-directional communication capability between pumps and the Cerner clinical system.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, the Trust is in the process of introducing new infusion pumps across all sites. One of the requirements for the procurement of these pumps was that they should allow bi-directional communication between the pumps and the Cerner clinical system. This would allow auto-programming of the pump from the electronic prescription and would automatically update the hourly infusion rate recorded in the iView infusion section of the drug chart. If the bi-directional communication capability of these pumps were to be used, this would significantly reduce the volume of manually entered data and remove the risk of transcription errors by bedside nurses when programming pumps or recording infusion rates.”

    Source location

    2021-0399-Response-from-Oxford-University-Hospitals_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 November 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Matching prescriptions to constantly adjusted infusion rates is impractical in critical care because bedside rates frequently change.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. Adopting a system of flagging up where prescription and administration of drugs is different.”

    Source location

    2021-0399-Response-from-Oxford-University-Hospitals_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 November 2021

    Open published response
  2. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Lottie Reid · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Lottie Reid, aged 95, was readmitted to hospital with haematemesis and melaena and died on 29 January 2015. The inquest concluded that she died from bleeding duodenal ulcers on a background of other significant natural disease, with her death probably accelerated by bleeding exacerbated by anticoagulant therapy. Concerns were raised that the medication administration chart at the intermediate care centre did not mirror the hospital discharge documentation and that there was no clear protocol for checking discrepancies, particularly at weekends.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that the electronic medication administration chart mirrors the discharge medication documentation

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That following discharge from Good Hope Hospital to Perry Trees Intermediate Care Centre the Printed Electronic Prescribing Medication Adm Chart did not mirror the medication referred to in the Discharge Letter and Prescription. (2) There did not appear to be a protocol in place whereby such discrepancies could be easily checked and this appeared to be especially difficult to do at weekends ”

    Source location

    Lottie Reid · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a protocol for easily checking medication discrepancies

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That following discharge from Good Hope Hospital to Perry Trees Intermediate Care Centre the Printed Electronic Prescribing Medication Adm Chart did not mirror the medication referred to in the Discharge Letter and Prescription. (2) There did not appear to be a protocol in place whereby such discrepancies could be easily checked and this appeared to be especially difficult to do at weekends ”

    Source location

    Lottie Reid · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Amend the nursing discharge checklist to remind staff to check the PEPMAC.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In order that the risk of future events can be reduced the following steps have been taken by the Trust:”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Improve and standardise yellow-card discharge documentation to provide optimal information for safe prescribing and administration.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition to strengthening the processes as described above, we consider that this case is an opportunity to improve the discharge process and the documentation in particular:”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Obtain governance approval and pilot the revised yellow-card documentation within palliative care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This process will reduce the risk of inconsistency in the discharge documents for the patient, as there will only be one document that the clinicians will refer to on discharge. The template will be standardised to ensure it contains the optimal information for safe prescribing and administration.”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Make a final decision on extending the revised discharge documentation process to intermediate-care discharges after piloting and feedback review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Once the new documentation has been approved through our governance processes, it will be piloted within palliative care. Subject to feedback from the community staff, a final decision as to the appropriateness of implementing this process for patients being discharged into an intermediate care facility will be made. It is likely that this decision will be made in the next six months, and will be based on clarity of the prescribing and a review of any reported incidents.”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Check available MAC charts and TTOs for medication discrepancies.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. To strengthen the current pharmacy processes, when available, MAC charts and TTOs are checked for discrepancies. As part of our response, the incident was discussed with the pharmacist involved. The Chief Pharmacist has also reminded all of her pharmacists about the importance of this issue. The Chief Pharmacist is also reviewing existing SOPs to ensure they are robust and fit for purpose.”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Remind all pharmacists about the importance of identifying medication discrepancies between MAC charts and TTOs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. To strengthen the current pharmacy processes, when available, MAC charts and TTOs are checked for discrepancies. As part of our response, the incident was discussed with the pharmacist involved. The Chief Pharmacist has also reminded all of her pharmacists about the importance of this issue. The Chief Pharmacist is also reviewing existing SOPs to ensure they are robust and fit for purpose.”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review existing pharmacy SOPs to ensure they are robust and fit for purpose.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. To strengthen the current pharmacy processes, when available, MAC charts and TTOs are checked for discrepancies. As part of our response, the incident was discussed with the pharmacist involved. The Chief Pharmacist has also reminded all of her pharmacists about the importance of this issue. The Chief Pharmacist is also reviewing existing SOPs to ensure they are robust and fit for purpose.”

    Source location

    2015-0241-Response-by-Birmingham-Heartlands-Hospitals
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 June 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026