Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35642033›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Differences in medication reconciliation interventions between six hospitals: a mixed method study.

C C M Stuijt, B J F van den Bemt, V E Boerlage, M J A Janssen, K Taxis, F Karapinar-Çarkit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

C C M StuijtApoMed, Michelangelostraat 62-2, 1077CG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. stuijt@apomed.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-7195
B J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Ubbergen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8560-9514
V E BoerlageDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
M J A JanssenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
K TaxisDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
F Karapinar-ÇarkitDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3077-9663
OLVG · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLGGD Amsterdam · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently.

objectiveQuantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences.

methodsThis explanatory retrospective mixed-method study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. Patients from six hospitals and six different wards i.e. orthopaedics, surgery, pulmonary diseases, internal medicine, cardiology and gastroenterology were included. At these wards, MedRec was implemented both on hospital admission and discharge. The number of pharmacy interventions was collected and classified in two subcategories. First, the number of interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies (elimination of differences between listed medication and the patient's actual medication use). And second, the number of medication optimizations (optimization of pharmacotherapy e.g. eliminating double medication). Based on these quantitative results and interviews, a focus group was performed to give insight in local MedRec processes to address differences in context between hospitals. Descriptive analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative) was used.

resultsOn admission 765 (85%) patients from six hospitals, received MedRec by trained nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmaceutical consultants or pharmacists. Of those, 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD ± 2.4)) had at least one discrepancy. Upon discharge, these numbers were among 632 (70%) of patients, 5-28% (mean per patient 0.7 (SD 1.2)). Optimizations in pharmacotherapy were implemented for 2% (0.4-3.7 interventions per patient upon admission) to 95% (0.1-1.7 interventions per patient upon discharge) of patients. The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, the type of healthcare professionals involved, where and when patient interviews for MedRec were performed and finally, embedding and extent of medication optimization.

conclusionsHospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. Differences in execution of MedRec and local context determines the number of interventions. This study can support hospitals who want to optimize MedRec processes.

Indexed as

HospitalsMedication ReconciliationHumansMedication ErrorsPharmacistsRetrospective StudiesHospital admissionHospital dischargeHospital pharmacyMedication errorsMedication reconciliation

Identifiers

PMID35642033
PMCPMC9158255
OpenAlexW4281969811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.