Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28039294›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Process mapping evaluation of medication reconciliation in academic teaching hospitals: a critical step in quality improvement.

Anne Holbrook, James M Bowen, Harsit Patel, Chris O'Brien, John J You, Roshan Tahavori, Jeff Doleweerd, Tim Berezny, Dan Perri, Carmine Nieuwstraten and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne HolbrookDivision of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
James M BowenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Harsit PatelHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Chris O'BrienHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
John J YouDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Roshan TahavoriClinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jeff DoleweerdDoleweerd Consulting Inc., Orillia, Ontario, Canada.
Tim BereznyDoleweerd Consulting Inc., Orillia, Ontario, Canada.
Dan PerriDivision of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Carmine NieuwstratenSt Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sue TroyanClinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Ameen PatelDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) has been a mandated or recommended activity in Canada, the USA and the UK for nearly 10 years. Accreditation bodies in North America will soon require MedRec for every admission, transfer and discharge of every patient. Studies of MedRec have revealed unintentional discrepancies in prescriptions but no clear evidence that clinically important outcomes are improved, leading to widely variable practices. Our objective was to apply process mapping methodology to MedRec to clarify current processes and resource usage, identify potential efficiencies and gaps in care, and make recommendations for improvement in the light of current literature evidence of effectiveness.

methodsProcess engineers observed and recorded all MedRec activities at 3 academic teaching hospitals, from initial emergency department triage to patient discharge, for general internal medicine patients. Process maps were validated with frontline staff, then with the study team, managers and patient safety leads to summarise current problems and discuss solutions.

resultsAcross all of the 3 hospitals, 5 general problem themes were identified: lack of use of all available medication sources, duplication of effort creating inefficiency, lack of timeliness of completion of the Best Possible Medication History, lack of standardisation of the MedRec process, and suboptimal communication of MedRec issues between physicians, pharmacists and nurses. DISCUSSION: MedRec as practised in this environment requires improvements in quality, timeliness, consistency and dissemination. Further research exploring efficient use of resources, in terms of personnel and costs, is required.

Indexed as

Hospitals, TeachingMedication ReconciliationAccreditationCanadaClinical Pharmacy Information SystemsHealth Services ResearchHumansMedication ErrorsMedication Systems, HospitalPatient DischargeProcess Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementUnited KingdomUnited StatesCLINICAL PHARMACOLOGYINTERNAL MEDICINEQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID28039294
PMCPMC5223656
OpenAlexW2564089423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.