Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27437050›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2016

Evaluation of an Electronic Module for Reconciling Medications in Home Health Plans of Care.

Heidi S Kramer, Bryan Gibson, Yarden Livnat, Iona Thraen, Abraham A Brody, Randall Rupper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Heidi S KramerHSR&D, George E Whalen Salt Lake City VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt lake City, UT.
Bryan GibsonDivision of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; IDEAS 2.0 Center George E Whalen VA Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT.
Yarden LivnatDivision of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah.
Iona ThraenHSR&D, George E Whalen Salt Lake City VA Medical Center , Salt Lake City, UT.
Abraham A BrodyJames J Peters Bronx VA Medical Center GRECC, Bronx, NY; Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing at the NYU College of Nursing, New York, NY.
Randall RupperGeorge E Wahlen Salt Lake VA Medical Center, Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center; Department of Geriatrics University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTransitions in patient care pose an increased risk to patient safety. One way to reduce this risk is to ensure accurate medication reconciliation during the transition. Here we present an evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module we developed to reduce the transition risk in patients referred for home healthcare.

methodsNineteen physicians with experience in managing home health referrals were recruited to participate in this within-subjects experiment. Participants completed medication reconciliation for three clinical cases in each of two conditions. The first condition (paper-based) simulated current practice - reconciling medication discrepancies between a paper plan of care (CMS 485) and a simulated Electronic Health Record (EHR). For the second condition (electronic) participants used our medication reconciliation module, which we integrated into the simulated EHR. To evaluate the effectiveness of our medication reconciliation module, we employed repeated measures ANOVA to test the hypotheses that the module will: 1) Improve accuracy by reducing the number of unaddressed medication discrepancies, 2) Improve efficiency by reducing the reconciliation time, 3) have good perceived usability.

resultsThe improved accuracy hypothesis is supported. Participants left more discrepancies unaddressed in the paper-based condition than the electronic condition, F (1,1) = 22.3, p < 0.0001 (Paper Mean = 1.55, SD = 1.20; Electronic Mean = 0.45, SD = 0.65). However, contrary to our efficiency hypothesis, participants took the same amount of time to complete cases in the two conditions, F (1, 1) =0.007, p = 0.93 (Paper Mean = 258.7 seconds, SD = 124.4; Electronic Mean = 260.4 seconds, SD = 158.9). The usability hypothesis is supported by a composite mean ability and confidence score of 6.41 on a 7-point scale, 17 of 19 participants preferring the electronic system and an SUS rating of 86.5.

conclusionWe present the evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module that increases detection and resolution of medication discrepancies compared to a paper-based process. Further work to integrate medication reconciliation within an electronic medical record is warranted.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMedication ReconciliationPhysiciansReferral and Consultationelectronic medical recordshome health agency referralsmedical transition careMedication reconciliationpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID27437050
PMCPMC4941849

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.