ArticleBJPsych bulletin2020
Medicines reconciliation at the community mental health team-general practice interface: quality improvement study.
Article in BJPsych bulletin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating a pharmacist-led cardio-renal-metabolic service to reduce healthcare inequities in a socioeconomically deprived population: a prospective intervention study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Design and Evaluation of Peer Supervision for Community Mental Health Workers: A Task-Shifting Strategy in Low-Resource Settings.Community mental health journal · 2024Article
- Exploring learning needs for general practice based pharmacist: Are behavioural and influencing skills needed?Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and methodTo increase the proportion of patients with no psychotropic drug discrepancies at the community mental health team (CMHT)-general practice interface. Three CMHTs participated. Over a 14 month period, quality improvement methodologies were used: individual patient-level feedback to patient's prescribers, run charts and meetings with CMHTs.
resultsOne CMHT improved medicines reconciliation accuracy and demonstrated significant reductions in prescribing discrepancies. One in three (119/356) patients had ≥1 discrepancy involving 20% (166/847) of all prescribed psychotropics. Discrepancies were graded as: 'fatal' (0%), 'serious' (17%) and 'negligible/minor harm' (83%) but were associated with extra avoidable prescribing costs. For medicines routinely supplied by secondary care, 68% were not recorded in general practice electronic prescribing systems.Clinical implicationsImprovements in medicines reconciliation accuracy were achieved for one CMHT. This may have been partly owing to a multidisciplinary team approach to sharing and addressing prescribing discrepancies. Improving prescribing accuracy may help to reduce avoidable drug-related harms to patients.Declaration of interestNone.
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.