ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Evaluating the quality, feasibility and patient satisfaction of medication history taking by telephone for patients with scheduled admissions: a pilot study.
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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedication history taking at hospital admission is still prone to errors. Despite numerous quality improvement initiatives, new strategies to improve medication history taking are still sought and evaluated. Unfortunately, the gold standard research methodology for evaluation is resource-intensive, as it requires each patient to complete two medication history interviews. Therefore, a new study design and quality parameter were developed.
aimWe aimed to pilot our newly developed study design and quality parameter in a study on medication history taking by telephone.
methodIn this prospective interventional study, patients with scheduled admissions had their medication histories taken either by telephone before admission (intervention) by a pharmacist or in-person by physicians or medical interns upon admission (control). Following the newly developed design, we compared a patients' new medication histories to the respective pre-visit medication lists available in the medical records to calculate the new endpoint: the difference in the number of updates per patient. Further, we surveyed patients and staff on their satisfaction.
resultsWe enrolled 76 intervention and 75 control patients. In the intervention group, a mean of 4.93 (± 4.45, 0-18) updates were found vs. 3.40 (± 3.75, 0-21) in the control group. Accordingly, the incident rate of number of updates per patient was 1.34 times higher in the intervention group (p = 0.044). The distribution of the types of updates was similar with the most common type of update being newly initiated medicines in both groups. Medication history taking by telephone took 15.7 ± 9.8 min (mean ± SD), including preparation, interview, and documentation. Survey results showed that intervention patients felt positive about the telephone interviews. Both groups were open to other digital approaches, e.g., online platforms.
conclusionThe new study design proved feasible to evaluate medication history taking by telephone with comprehensible results. The telephone approach delivered more updates compared to standard care, however, the proposed endpoint needs to be validated against the gold standard before widespread application Patient acceptance for this and other digital approaches was high in both groups.
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.