Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31362701›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Medication errors in primary health care records; a cross-sectional study in Southern Sweden.

Sofia Säfholm, Åsa Bondesson, Sara Modig

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Sofia SäfholmTåbelund Primary Health Care Center, Eslöv, Sweden.
Åsa BondessonInstitution for Clinical Sciences in Malmö/Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Box 50332, SE-202 13, Malmö, Sweden.
Sara ModigInstitution for Clinical Sciences in Malmö/Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Box 50332, SE-202 13, Malmö, Sweden. sara.modig@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-7775-4482

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug-related problems due to medication errors are common and have the potential to cause harm. This study, which was conducted in Swedish primary health care, aimed to assess how well the medication lists in the medical records tally with the medications used by patients and to explore what type of medication errors are present.

methodsWe reviewed the electronic medical records (EMRs) at ten primary health care centers in Skåne county, Sweden. The medication lists in the EMRs were compared with the results of medication reconciliations, which were performed telephonically in a structured manner by a physician, two weeks after a follow-up visit to a general practitioner. Of 76 patients aged ≥18 years, who on a certain day in 2016 were visiting one of the included primary health care centers, a total of 56 were included. Descriptive statistics were used. The chi2-test and the Mann Whitney U-test were used for comparisons. The main outcome measure was the proportion of correctly updated medication lists.

resultsFollowing a recent visit to the general practitioner, a total of 16% of the medication lists in the medical records were consistent with the patients' actual medication use. The mean number of medication errors in the medical records was 3.8 (SD 3.8). Incorrect dose was the most common error, followed by additional drugs without indication/documentation. The most common medication group among all errors was analgesics and among dose errors the most common medication group was cardiovascular drugs.

conclusionA total of 84% of the medication lists used by the general practitioners in the assessment and follow-up of the patients were not updated; this implies a great safety risk since medication errors are potentially harmful. Ensuring medication reconciliations in daily clinical practice is important for patient safety.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMedication ErrorsMiddle AgedSwedenMedication discrepanciesMedication errorsMedication reconciliationPatient safetyPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31362701
PMCPMC6668157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.