Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31539073›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Effect of an Electronic Medication Reconciliation Intervention on Adverse Drug Events: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Robyn Tamblyn, Michal Abrahamowicz, David L Buckeridge, Melissa Bustillo, Alan J Forster, Nadyne Girard, Bettina Habib, James Hanley, Allen Huang, Siyana Kurteva and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01179867 (Using Novel Canadian Resources to Improve Medication Reconciliation at Discharge), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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.

NCT01179867 nacompletednot on this map

Using Novel Canadian Resources to Improve Medication Reconciliation at Discharge

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcGill UniversityRan2014 to 2019Enrolled4,014ConditionsMedication Reconciliation, Adverse Drug EventsArmsElectronic Medication Reconciliation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

17 authors.

Robyn TamblynDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Michal AbrahamowiczDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
David L BuckeridgeDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Melissa BustilloClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alan J ForsterOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nadyne GirardClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Bettina HabibClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
James HanleyDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Allen HuangDivision of Geriatric Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Siyana KurtevaDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Todd C LeeDepartment of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ari N MeguerditchianClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Teresa MoragaClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Aude MotulskyCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Lina PetrellaMcGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Daniala L WeirDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Nancy WinsladeClinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP-106681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Adverse drug events (ADEs) account for up to 16% of emergency department (ED) visits and 7% of hospital admissions. Medication reconciliation is required for hospital accreditation because it can reduce medication discrepancies, but there is no evidence that reducing discrepancies reduces ADEs or other adverse outcomes. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic medication reconciliation reduces ADEs, medication discrepancies, and other adverse outcomes compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized trial involved 3491 patients who were discharged from 2 medical units and 2 surgical units at the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between October 2014 and November 2016. Data analysis took place from July 2017 to July 2019. Intervention: The RightRx intervention electronically retrieved community drugs from the provincial insurer and aligned them with in-hospital drugs to facilitate reconciliation and communication at care transitions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ADEs in 30 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included medication discrepancies, ED visits, hospital readmissions, and a composite outcome of ED visits, readmissions, and death up to 90 days after discharge. Results: Of 4656 eligible patients, 3567 (76.6%) consented to participate (2060 [57.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 69.8 [14.9] years). Overall, 76 patients died during the hospital stay, so 3491 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of ADEs between intervention and control groups (76 [4.6%] vs 73 [4.0%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.33-1.48), ED visits (433 [26.2%] vs 488 [26.6%]; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.36-1.42), hospital readmission (170 [10.3%] vs 261 [14.2%]; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-1.14), or the composite outcome (447 [27.0%] vs 506 [27.6%]; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.27) at 30 days. Medication discrepancies were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group (437 [26.4%] vs 1029 [56.0%]; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.57). Changes made to community medications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and new medications (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18) were significant risk factors for ADEs. Conclusions and Relevance: Electronic medication reconciliation reduced medication discrepancies but did not reduce ADEs or other adverse outcomes. Hospital accreditation should focus on interventions that reduce the risk of adverse events for patients with multiple changes to community medications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179867.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedCanadaCluster AnalysisDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMedical Record LinkageMedication ReconciliationMiddle AgedPatient DischargePatient Readmission

Identifiers

PMID31539073
PMCPMC6755531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.