ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Electronic medical record and glaucoma medications: connecting the medication reconciliation with adherence.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies in Ophthalmic Medication Documentation for Glaucoma Patients.Ophthalmology science · 2022Article
- The role of medical data in efficient patient care delivery: a review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2019Review
- Evaluating Eye Drop Instillation Technique and Its Determinants in Glaucoma Patients.Journal of ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Computable Phenotype for Normal Tension Glaucoma.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate consistency in documentation of glaucoma medications in the electronic medical record and identify which regimen patients adhere to when inconsistencies exist. Factors contributing to medication nonadherence are also explored.
methodsRetrospective chart review of medication adherence encompassing 200 patients from three glaucoma physicians at a tertiary referral center over a 1-month period. Adherence was determined by the consistency between a patients stated medication regimen and either the active medication list in the electronic medical record, or the physicians planned medication regimen in the preceding clinic visit. Patient charts were also reviewed for patient sex, age, primary language, race, and total number of medications.
resultsA total of 160 charts showed consistency in documentation between the physician note and electronic medication reconciliation. Of those patients, 83.1% reported adherence with their glaucoma medication schedule. When there was a discrepancy in documentation (40 charts), 72.5% patients followed the physician-stated regimen vs 20% who followed neither vs 7.5% who followed the medical record (P<0.01). No difference in adherence was observed based on sex (P=0.912) or total number of medications taken (P=0.242). Language, both English- (P=0.075) and Haitian (P=0.10) -speaking populations, as well as race, Caucasian (P=0.31), African-American (P=0.54), and Hispanic (P=0.58), had no impact on medication adherence. Patients over 80 years of age were more nonadherent as compared to other decades (P=0.04).
conclusionInconsistent documentation between the electronic medical record physician note and medication regimen may contribute to patient medication nonadherence. Patients over 80 years of age were associated with higher rates of nonadherence, while sex, total number of medications, race, and language had no interaction with medication adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.