ArticleThe mental health clinician2024
Med rec double check: Inpatient psychiatry medication errors identified on admission using Medicaid Web portals and electronic pharmaceutical claims data.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of multi-professional medication reviews (MPMRs) on medication prescriptions in psychiatry.PloS one · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The role of pharmacists during medication reconciliation (MR) is well established, with a number of reports describing this in the context of psychiatric hospitalizations. However, medication errors (MEs) are common during transitions of care, with no exception during psychiatric hospitalizations. Our institution uses pharmacy-performed MR processes using patient interviews and reviewing objective sources, such as electronic pharmaceutical claims data (EPCD), which includes Medicaid Web portals. The inpatient psychiatric pharmacist reviews EPCD sources against previously pharmacy-completed MRs for new admissions, where if discrepancies are found, the patient is reinterviewed to identify and correct MEs. Methods: We performed a prospective quality improvement project during 28 days to evaluate the quantity and classification of MEs upon admission to a 22-bed inpatient psychiatry unit. Results: Of 52 included patients, where a cumulative 426 medications were reviewed, a total of 29 MEs in 16 patients were identified. Eight patients had discrepancies on their home medication lists when compared to EPCD, where 7 of these had at least 1 ME due to inaccurate MR. Discussion: Of all the MEs identified, the greatest quantity was found secondary to the EPCD "double-check" method. The most common MEs in all patients were the omission of home medications (34%), wrong frequency (28%), and ordering medication the patient is not taking (10%). All patients admitted on long-acting injection antipsychotics had errors in last dose received. No MEs resulted in patient harm, and they were identified and corrected by the psychiatric pharmacist 97% of the time.
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.