Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26243529›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015

Medication histories by pharmacy technicians and physicians in an emergency department.

Jolene Pilegaaard Henriksen, Susanne Noerregaard, Thomas Croft Buck, Lise Aagaard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Description of Position Ads for Pharmacy Technicians.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jolene Pilegaaard HenriksenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Odense University Hospital Pharmacy, Odense, Denmark.
Susanne NoerregaardDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Odense University Hospital Pharmacy, Odense, Denmark.
Thomas Croft BuckDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Odense University Hospital Pharmacy, Odense, Denmark.
Lise AagaardClinical Pharmacology, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. laagaard@health.sdu.dk.
Odense University Hospital · DKSvendborg Sygehus · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication histories (MHs) obtained at the time of patients' admission to hospital are often incomplete, and lack of information about patients' actual medicine use can potentially lead to prescribing failures and serious adverse events. Uses of clinical pharmacists in obtaining MHs are beneficial, but due to limited economic resources clinical pharmacists cannot be present in every hospital ward, and therefore pharmacy technicians (PTs) could probably be trained in obtaining MHs.

objectiveTo compare discrepancies in MHs obtained by physicians and PTs in an emergency department. Second to evaluate, whether PTs could assist and/or replace physicians in obtaining MHs.

methodsThe study was conducted in the emergency department at Svendborg Hospital, Denmark and patients treated with a minimum of three prescribed medicines were included. On patients' admission to hospital, physicians recorded the primary MHs, and within 48 h the secondary MHs were made by PTs. All MHs were conducted using standard guidelines. A clinical pharmacist reviewed the MHs, and based on these reviews, a final medication list was defined, and the MHs were compared to this. The discrepancies were registered with respect to type and therapeutic group (medicines).

resultsA total of 113 patients were included in this study, and data for 106 patients were analysed. On average, three discrepancies were detected for each patient in the primary MHs, and less than one discrepancy per patient in the secondary MHs. A total of 1075 prescriptions were registered, and for the physicians, 287 discrepancies (27 % of total prescriptions) were found, and for PTs the number was 28 (2 % of total prescriptions). The commonly detected discrepancy was "drug missing in the electronic patient record". The largest number of discrepancies was found for nervous system medications (ATC group N), medicines from ATC group A (alimentary tract and metabolism) and respiratory medicine (ATC group R).

conclusionFewer discrepancies in the MHs obtained by PTs than physicians were detected compared to standard medicine lists made by an experienced clinical pharmacist.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDenmarkElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMedication ReconciliationMiddle AgedPharmacy TechniciansPhysiciansClinical pharmacyDenmarkMedication historyMedication listMedication reviewPharmacistPharmacy technicianPhysician

Identifiers

PMID26243529
OpenAlexW1852413419

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.