ArticleCureus2025
Improving 24-Hour Medication Reconciliation Through Audit and Feedback: A Multicycle Quality Improvement Study at a Scottish District General Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Medication reconciliation (MR) is a key patient safety process during hospital admission. MR ensures an accurate list of a patient's medications is compiled on hospital admission, enabling safe downstream prescribing and reducing adverse events. This responsibility falls primarily to the admitting clinician in paper-based systems with limited pharmacy input at the point of admission. This study aimed to assess local compliance with the national benchmarks and evaluate whether a structured audit-feedback intervention could improve MR documentation and the recording of reasons for withholding medications. Methods This quality improvement project was conducted over four 1-week periods: an initial audit, a pre-intervention baseline, a post-intervention follow-up, and a reaudit 10 days later. The medical records and prescription charts of 305 acute admissions were reviewed within 24 hours of presentation. The primary process measures were (i) the proportion of patients with a documented MR and (ii) the proportion of withheld medications with a documented reason, recorded in the clinical notes, drug chart, or MR sheet. The intervention included personalized compliance feedback to admitting doctors and consultants, public recognition of high performers, and educational posters placed in clinical areas. Two-proportion Z-tests were used to assess significance. Results The proportion of patients with a documented MR increased from 55 of 73 (75.3%) pre-intervention to 50 of 65 (89.3%) post-intervention (p = 0.044), and further to 64 of 69 (92.8%) at reaudit (p = 0.0049). The proportion of withheld medications with a documented reason rose from 23 of 39 (59.0%) to 30 of 37 (81.1%) post-intervention (p = 0.036) and remained elevated at 35 of 44 (79.6%) during the reaudit (p = 0.041). The most commonly withheld medication classes were diuretics (n = 27, 14.5%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 24, 12.9%), and statins (n = 16, 8.6%). The most frequent reasons for withholding were acute kidney injury or dehydration (n = 39, 27.8%), hypotension (n = 15, 11.5%), and medications deemed not indicated (n = 15, 11.5%). Conclusion A targeted, low-cost audit-feedback intervention directed at admitting clinicians significantly improved compliance with MR standards and the documentation of withheld medications. These findings suggest that, even in resource-limited, paper-based settings, behavioral strategies can deliver meaningful improvements in prescribing safety and move practice closer to national standards.
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.