Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30912979›Full record

ArticleHuman factors2019

Making Sense of the Cognitive Task of Medication Reconciliation Using a Card Sorting Task.

Yuval Bitan, Yisrael Parmet, Geva Greenfield, Shelly Teng, Richard I Cook, Mark E Nunnally

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human factors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Yisrael ParmetBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Geva GreenfieldImperial College London, UK.
Shelly TengUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Richard I CookThe Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Mark E NunnallyNew York University, New York City, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore cognitive strategies clinicians apply while performing a medication reconciliation task, handling incomplete and conflicting information.

backgroundMedication reconciliation is a method clinicians apply to find and resolve inconsistencies in patients' medications and medical conditions lists. The cognitive strategies clinicians use during reconciliation are unclear. Controlled lab experiments can explore how clinicians make sense of uncertain, missing, or conflicting information and therefore support the development of a human performance model. We hypothesize that clinicians apply varied cognitive strategies to handle this task and that profession and experience affect these strategies.

method130 clinicians participated in a tablet-based experiment conducted in a large American teaching hospital. They were asked to simulate medication reconciliation using a card sorting task (CaST) to organize medication and medical condition lists of a specific clinical case. Later on, they were presented with new information and were asked to add it to their arrangements. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed the ways clinicians arranged patient information.

resultsFour distinct cognitive strategies were identified ("Conditions first":

conclusionClinicians apply various cognitive strategies while reconciling medications and medical conditions. APPLICATION: Clinical information systems should support multiple cognitive strategies, allowing flexibility in organizing information.

Indexed as

Medication ReconciliationNursesPhysiciansAdultConcept FormationExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMalePatient SafetyThinkingcard sorting taskcognitive taskhealth care information systemsmedication reconciliationpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID30912979
PMCPMC6820122

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.