ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
Evaluation of medication reconciliation process in internal medicine wards of an academic medical center by a pharmacist: errors and risk factors.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medication reconciliation based on complete medication histories has been introduced to minimize medication errors and its associated healthcare costs in the transitions of care. In this study, to evaluate the routine process of medication reconciliation in an academic medical center, medication history taken at the time of admission by physicians and the first order prescribed in the hospital was compared to a comprehensive reconciliation form filled by a pharmacist using direct interview of the patients and caregivers, patient's insurance records and medication packages they brought from home. Two hundred and fifty-seven patients admitted in the internal wards of an academic medical center between June and September 2019 were investigated. In 6% of the patients, drug history was not included in the medical history form. Other patients were using 8.59 drugs in average, with a mean of 3.55 medication discrepancies in the history-taking process. Most commonly occurring errors were drug omissions (2.23 per patient on average) and incorrect frequency (0.96 per patient on average). There was a mean of 0.7 potentially harmful discrepancies for each patient. The mean number of drug discrepancies in new prescriptions from the hospital was 1.25, and almost half of patients had a potentially harmful discrepancies reordered in the hospital. There was no statistically meaningful relationship between patients' gender, physicians' gender, or the time of history taking and the total number of medication errors. History of ischemic heart disease was significantly associated with higher number of medication errors (p = 0.05). The results suggest that the medication reconciliation process in this academic center is inefficient. Using a systematic approach in medication reconciliation and gathering the best possible medication history, with a pharmacist who has better understanding of drugs' potential interactions and harmful errors can improve this process and prevent such errors in the future.
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.