Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25862764›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Nature and management of duplicate medication alerts.

Mette Heringa, Annemieke Floor, Willemijn M Meijer, Peter A G M De Smet, Marcel L Bouvy

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mette HeringaSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, the Netherlands Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands m.heringa@stevenshof.nl.
Annemieke FloorSIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, the Netherlands Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Willemijn M MeijerRoyal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), The Hague, the Netherlands.
Peter A G M De SmetRoyal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP), The Hague, the Netherlands Departments of Clinical Pharmacy and IQ Healthcare, University Medical Centre St Radboud, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvySIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, the Netherlands Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLRoyal Dutch Pharmacists Association · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the nature of duplicate medication (DM) alerts, their management by community pharmacists, and potential characteristics of DM alerts that lead to interventions by pharmacists.

methodsObservational study in 53 community pharmacies. Each pharmacist registered the nature and management of 24 DM alerts on a structured form.

resultsOn average, the clinical decision support systems generated 20.4 DM alerts per 100 dispensed drugs. In half of the 1272 registered alerts, the pharmacists judged that there was no risk for concurrent use of both prescriptions. In 32% of the alerts, the DM alert was generated for an intentional combination. In 17% of the alerts, there was a risk for unintentional concurrent use. In 32% of the alerts the pharmacists decided that one or more actions were needed: the electronic patient record was updated in 15% of the alerts and in 19% of the alerts the pharmacists performed an external action-for example, informing the patient or modifying the prescription (including 5 therapeutic prescription modifications and 22 logistic prescription modifications). Alerts concerning first dispensing were more likely to be followed by an external action than alerts concerning refills (40% vs 14%, P < .001). DISCUSSION AND

conclusionIn community pharmacy, prescription modifications based on DM alerts are rare, but DM alerts lead with some regularity to other actions-for example, patient instruction and update of the electronic patient record. As the current DM alerts are diverse and nonspecific in detecting situations where external action is considered relevant, other ways of alerting should therefore be considered.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedical Order Entry SystemsPharmaciesHumansMedication ErrorsNetherlandsclinical decision support systemscommunity pharmacy servicesduplicate medicationmedical order entry systemsmedication errors

Identifiers

PMID25862764
PMCPMC11734748
OpenAlexW2149457040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.