Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291672›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023

Obtaining medication histories via telepharmacy: an observational study.

Martina Francis, Peter Francis, Asad E Patanwala, Jonathan Penm

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Martina FrancisDepartment of Pharmacy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. Mfra9590@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0420-3318
Peter FrancisDepartment of Neurology, Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0465-4035
Asad E PatanwalaDepartment of Pharmacy, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3999-4703
Jonathan PenmFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9606-7135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication reconciliation is an effective strategy to reduce medication errors upon hospital admission. The process involves obtaining a best possible medication history (BPMH), which can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepharmacy was used to reduce the risk of viral transmission. Telepharmacy is the remote provision of pharmacy-led clinical services, such as obtaining BPMHs, using telecommunications. However, the accuracy of telephone-obtained BPMHs has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the telephone-obtained BPMH compared to an in-person obtained BPMH.

methodsThis prospective, observational study took place in a large tertiary hospital. Recruited patients or carers had their BPMH obtained by a pharmacist over the telephone. The same patients or carers then had their BPMH conducted in-person to identify any deviations between the telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. All telephone-obtained BPMHs were timed with a stopwatch. Any deviations were categorised according to their potential consequence. An accurate BPMH was defined as having no deviations. Descriptive statistics were used to report all quantitative variables. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for patients and medications for having medication deviations.

resultsIn total, 116 patients were recruited to receive both a telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. Of these, 91 patients (78%) had an accurate BPMH with no deviations. Of the 1104 medications documented across all the BPMHs, 1064 (96%) had no deviation. Of the 40 (4%) medication deviations, 38 were deemed low-risk (3%) and 2 high-risk (1%). A patient was more likely to have a deviation if they are taking more medications (aOR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22; p < 0.05). A medication was more likely to have a deviation if it was regular non-prescription medication (aOR: 4.82; 95% CI: 2.14-10.82; p < 0.001) or 'when required' non-prescription medication (aOR: 3.12; 95% CI: 1.20-8.11; p = 0.02) or a topical medication (aOR: 12.53; 95% CI: 4.34-42.17; p < 0.001).

conclusionsTelepharmacy represents a reliable and time-efficient alternative to in-person BPMHs.

Indexed as

Best possible medication historyHospital admissionMedication errorsTelepharmacyTransition of care

Identifiers

PMID37291672
PMCPMC10248974

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.