ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Evaluating medication discrepancies and harm: a matched cohort study of collaborative pharmacist prescribing in a statewide healthcare system using electronic prescribing.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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.
- Patient perspectives and experiences of collaborative pharmacist prescribing in the hospital inpatient setting: a cross-sectional survey.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCollaborative pharmacist prescribing models involve pharmacists working with doctors and patients to develop medication plans and prescribe medications. Limited evidence exists on the impact of these models on medication discrepancies in hospitals using electronic prescribing systems (EPS).
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of collaborative pharmacist prescribing on medication discrepancies and potential patient harm within a statewide healthcare system using EPS.
methodA multi-site matched cohort study involving 240 patients was conducted. EPS data for 120 patients aged ≥ 18 years who received collaborative pharmacist prescribing was matched 1:1 with 120 patients who received usual care of independent medical prescribing. Matching variables were hospital, clinical unit, sex, age, admission date, triage category and pre-admission medication count. The electronic medical record was reviewed to identify undocumented medication discrepancies, which were defined as any unexplained difference between the pharmacist-led medication history and medications prescribed on admission. The frequency of undocumented discrepancies was calculated. An independent multi-disciplinary clinician panel determined potential harm, using the Harm Associated with Medication Error Classification (HAMEC) tool.
resultsThere were fewer undocumented discrepancies per medication prescribed in the collaborative pharmacist prescribing group compared to usual care (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.06) and the relative risk of undocumented discrepancies per patient was lower (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13-0.39). The expert clinician panel found that undocumented discrepancies rarely posed serious or severe harm in either group (0 undocumented discrepancies with potential to cause serious or severe harm in the collaborative pharmacist prescribing group compared to 8 in the usual care group).
conclusionThe implementation of collaborative pharmacist prescribing within a statewide EPS significantly reduced undocumented discrepancies and lowered the potential for patient harm. As healthcare systems globally shift towards electronic prescribing, this study provides timely and actionable evidence to inform policy and support the adoption of collaborative prescribing models in hospitals using EPS. Such models offer a practical strategy to improve medication safety, reduce patient harm and strengthen interprofessional collaboration at the point of prescribing.
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.