What is the evidence for discontinuing the use of dangerous abbreviations?
We often receive requests for an evidence base regarding the use of abbreviations. For example, we have been asked for controlled studies that show populations with a significantly lower incidence of patient harm where “dangerous” abbreviations are not used. There really isn’t any research on this topic, just the reports we keep publishing and those that get national press. In fact we often cite a statement by Leape, Berwick, and Bates [JAMA, Volume 288(4). July 24, 2002 (501-7)] saying that a study would never be done on the need for leading zeroes (0.1 mg not .1 mg) and that one isn’t necessary. We have always advocated that it’s time to stop thinking “it hasn’t happened here so why should I change?” What would make anyone think it won’t happen again, to one of their patients, when our newsletter has for years chronicled random repeated deaths and injuries at various hospitals from a handful of bad abbreviations? Here is a link to an article we did a couple of years ago on a case tha
