ArticleAtencion primaria2021
The medication discrepancy detection service: A cost-effective multidisciplinary clinical approach.
Article in Atencion primaria, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Calculating the cost of medication errors: A systematic review of approaches and cost variables.BMJ open quality · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- [Exploration of professional and working conditions among community pharmacists in Gipuzkoa].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of a Medication Discrepancy Detection Service (MDDS), a collaborative service between the community pharmacy and Primary Care.
designNon-controlled before-and-after study.
settingBidasoa Integrated Healthcare Organisation, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
participantsThe service was provided by a multidisciplinary group of community pharmacists (CPs), general practitioners (GPs), and primary care pharmacists, to patients with discrepancies between their active medical charts and medicines that they were actually taking. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were the number of medicines, the type of discrepancy, and GPs' decisions. Secondary outcomes were time spent by CPs, emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and costs.
resultsThe MDDS was provided to 143 patients, and GPs resolved discrepancies for 126 patients. CPs identified 259 discrepancies, among which the main one was patients not taking medicines listed on their active medical charts (66.7%, n=152). The main GPs' decision was to withdraw the treatment (54.8%, n=125), which meant that the number of medicines per patient was reduced by 0.92 (9.12±3.82 vs. 8.20±3.81; p<.0001). The number of ED visits and hospital admissions per patient were reduced by 0.10 (0.61±.13 vs 0.52±0.91; p=.405 and 0.17 (0.33±0.66 vs. 0.16±0.42; p=.007), respectively. The cost per patient was reduced by €444.9 (€1003.3±2165.3 vs. €558.4±1273.0; p=.018).
conclusionThe MDDS resulted in a reduction in the number of medicines per patients and number of hospital admissions, and the service was associated with affordable, cost-effective ratios.
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.