ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Exploring Electronic Medical Record and Self-Administered Medication Risk Screening Tools in a Primary Care Clinic.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The doMESTIC RISK Tool: Prioritising Home-Care Patients for Clinical Pharmacy Services with the Help of a Delphi Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic medical record (EMR) screening for indicators of medication risk could improve efficiency in identifying primary care clinic patients in need of clinical pharmacist care compared with patient self-reporting.
objectivesTo (a) compare the performance of an EMR medication risk assessment questionnaire (MRAQ) with a self-administered (SA) MRAQ and (b) explore each tool's ability to predict indicators of health behavior, health status, and health care utilization.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted with 143 adults who attended an academic family medicine center and were taking ≥ 2 medications. All participants completed the 10-item SA-MRAQ, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Chew's health literacy screener, Stanford Health Distress Scale, and SF-36 overall rating of health. A blinded investigator completed the EMR-MRAQ and a chart review to ascertain 6 months of health care utilization. Outcome measures included the following: (a) scores from the 5- and 10-item SA-MRAQs and 5-item EMR-MRAQ; (b) sensitivity and specificity to determine the accuracy of the 5-item EMR versus the 5-item SA risk scores; (c) correlations between risk assessments and health behavior/status scales; and (d) area under the receiver operator curve to determine how well a high-risk score predicted health care utilization.
resultsThe 5-item SA-MRAQ, the 5-item EMR-MRAQ, and the 10-item SA-MRAQ categorized 52.9% (55/104), 69.2% (99/143), and 17.6% (18/102) of participants as high risk, respectively. For the 104 participants who completed both 5-item MRAQ tools, the EMR-MRAQ had a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 49.0% in detecting a high-risk SA-MRAQ score. Both 5-item risk assessments showed weak correlations with health distress and overall health, while the 10-item SA-MRAQ additionally showed weak correlations with medication adherence. The EMR-MRAQ was most effective in predicting all-cause emergency room visits/hospitalization (c-statistic = 0.69; 95% CI=0.57-0.81) and high clinic utilization (≥ 4 visits per 6 months; c-statistic = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.69-0.85). The EMR-MRAQ had high sensitivities but low specificities for these health care utilization outcomes, respectively (82.6% and 33.3%; 88.9% and 42.7%).
conclusionsThis pilot study suggests that EMR-MRAQ screening has high sensitivity but low specificity in comparison with self-reporting and was able to discriminate between those who would and would not experience health care utilization outcomes. These results justify further development and validation of an automated EMR-based tool to predict patient-important consequences of medication-related problems. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists Research and Education Foundation, which had no role in the analysis or interpretation of data or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors have no conflict of interests, potential or otherwise, to report. Makowsky had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design were contributed by Makowsky and Cor. Makowsky and Wong collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Makowsky, Cor, and Wong. The manuscript was written by Makowsky and was critically reviewed for intellectual content by Makowsky, Cor, and Wong.
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.