ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018
Usage and accuracy of medication data from nationwide health information exchange in Quebec, Canada.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. 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.
- Value Propositions for Digital Shared Medication Plans to Boost Patient-Health Care Professional Partnerships: Co-Design Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Health Care Worker Usage of Large-Scale Health Information Exchanges in Japan: User-Level Audit Log Analysis Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Article
- Understanding Engagement and the Potential Impact of an Electronic Drug Repository: Multi-Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: (1) To describe the usage of medication data from the Health Information Exchange (HIE) at the health care system level in the province of Quebec; (2) To assess the accuracy of the medication list obtained from the HIE. Methods: A descriptive study was conducted utilizing usage data obtained from the Ministry of Health at the individual provider level from January 1 to December 31, 2015. Usage patterns by role, type of site, and tool used to access the HIE were investigated. The list of medications of 111 high risk patients arriving at the emergency department of an academic healthcare center was obtained from the HIE and compared with the list obtained through the medication reconciliation process. Results: There were 31 022 distinct users accessing the HIE 11 085 653 times in 2015. The vast majority of pharmacists and general practitioners accessed it, compared to a minority of specialists and nurses. The top 1% of users was responsible of 19% of access. Also, 63% of the access was made using the Viewer application, while using a certified electronic medical record application seemed to facilitate usage. Among 111 patients, 71 (64%) had at least one discrepancy between the medication list obtained from the HIE and the reference list. Conclusions: Early adopters were mostly in primary care settings, and were accessing it more frequently when using a certified electronic medical record. Further work is needed to investigate how to resolve accuracy issues with the medication list and how certain tools provide different features.
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.