Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33022741›Full record

ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2020

[How complete is the Germany-wide standardised medication list ("Bundeseinheitlicher Medikationsplan")? An analysis at hospital admission.]

Stefanie Amelung, Bianca Bender, Andreas Meid, Stefanie Walk-Fritz, Torsten Hoppe-Tichy, Walter E Haefeli, Hanna M Seidling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Stefanie AmelungApotheke des Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Bianca BenderApotheke des Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Andreas MeidAbteilung Klinische Pharmakologie und Pharmakoepidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Stefanie Walk-FritzApotheke des Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Torsten Hoppe-TichyApotheke des Universitätsklinikums Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Walter E HaefeliKooperationseinheit Klinische Pharmazie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.ORCID 0000-0003-0672-6876
Hanna M SeidlingKooperationseinheit Klinische Pharmazie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.ORCID 0000-0002-1215-634X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt inpatient admission, the timeliness and completeness of the Germany-wide standardised medication list ("Bundeseinheitlicher Medikationsplan") often seems inappropriate. It is also unclear which characteristics of the lists increase the probability of discrepancies.

methodsA total of 100 medication lists of elective patients of a surgical clinic were retrospectively evaluated with regard to potential discrepancies compared to the standardised medication reconciliation. The discprepancies were assigned to 7 categories: drug taken is missing on the list, drug on the list is no longer taken, strength or dosage is missing at the list or is incorrect, or the documented dosage form is different. Advice on patient safety, involved drugs and dosage forms were also recorded. Multivariate analyses were used to investigate the influence of the timeliness, number of drugs and issuing medical specialty of the lists on the type and number of discrepancies.

resultsCompared to the medication reconciliation, 78 % (78/100) of the lists showed discrepancies. A total of 226 deviations (2.3 ± 0.6 deviations/list) were documented. Most often, a drug was missing from the list (n = 103). Of all recommendations, 64 % (83/177) concerned the perioperative management of anticoagulants (n = 55) and antidiabetics (n = 28), corresponding to 62 % (62/100) of the lists. In the multivariate analysis, only the risk of incorrect information on strength and dosage increased significantly with the age of the lists (p = 0.047) and was more than twice as high when the list was more than one month old.

conclusionsThe timeliness, completeness and aspects of patient safety must be comprehensively validated. Medication lists that are older than 1 month should be checked particularly critically with regard to information on strength and dosage and the plan should be updated accordingly at regular intervals.

Indexed as

GermanyHospitalsHumansMedical History TakingMedication ReconciliationPatient AdmissionRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33022741
PMCPMC7575356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.