Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31740477›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Assessing the quality of medication documentation: development and feasibility of the MediDocQ instrument for retrospective chart review in the hospital setting.

Antje Hammer, Anke Wagner, Monika A Rieger, Tanja Manser, WorkSafeMed Project Consortium#

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. PRN Medicines Optimization and Nurse Education.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Antje HammerInstitute for Patient Safety, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany Antje.Hammer@ukbonn.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2724-9901
Anke WagnerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Monika A RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Tanja ManserSchool of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland.
WorkSafeMed Project Consortium#

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe medication process requires clear and transparent documentation in patient records. Incomplete or incorrect medication documentation may contribute to inappropriate clinical decision-making and adverse events. To comprehensively assess the quality of in-hospital medication documentation, we developed a retrospective chart review (RCR) instrument. We report on the development process, the feasibility of the instrument and describe our application of the instrument to a sample of patient records.

designCross-sectional study using an RCR instrument to evaluate paper-based, non-standardised prescription and medication administration charts (MediDocQ).

settingTwo German university hospitals.

participantsRecords from 1361 patients admitted between April and July 2015 were evaluated.

methodsThe MediDocQ development process comprised six consecutive stages: focused literature review, web-based search, initial patient record screening, review by project advisory board, focus groups with professionals and pilot testing. The final 54-item RCR instrument covers three key components of medication documentation: (1) completeness of documented information (including prescription, medication administration and pro re nata (PRN) medication), (2) quality of transcriptions and (3) compliance with chart structure, legibility, handling of deletions and chart corrections. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values, SD, median and interquartile ranges for individual items.

resultsOverall, 33 out of 54 items resulted in mean values above 0.75, indicating high-quality medication documentation. Documentation quality was particularly compromised for verbal and PRN orders (which involve more steps than standard orders) and when documentation was not completed at the same time as medication administration.

conclusionsMediDocQ is a patient safety instrument that can be used to evaluate the quality of medication documentation and identify components of the process where intervention is required. In our setting, standardisation of medication documentation, particularly regarding medication administration and PRN medication is a priority.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesDocumentationFeasibility StudiesGermanyHospitalizationHospitals, UniversityHumansMedical RecordsMedication ErrorsPatient SafetyQuality Assurance, Health CareDocumentationHealth Care Quality AssessmentHealth & safetyMedication ErrorsPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID31740477
PMCPMC6886911

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.