Observational studyBMJ open2026
A multicentre, prospective, observational study on detecting medication discrepancies using medication reconciliation as a tool at the emergency department among geriatric patients in northwest Ethiopia.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGeriatric patients often face issues related to polypharmacy and adverse drug events. Re-evaluating prescribed medications and considering deprescribing is critical. Medication discrepancies (MDs) during care transitions can compromise patient safety, as over 60% of medication errors occur at these points. This study aimed to assess the magnitude of MDs and their contributing factors through the medication reconciliation (MedRec) process among geriatric patients in emergency departments of comprehensive specialised hospitals in northwest Ethiopia, as well as to determine the acceptance of pharmaceutical interventions.
designIn this multicentre prospective observational study, the best possible medication history (BPMH) was obtained within 24 hours of emergency department admission from at least two sources. A comparison of the BPMH list with medication orders from treating physicians revealed discrepancies. Data were analysed using STATA V.17.0, using multivariable logistic regression to assess variable associations.
settingAdult emergency departments of comprehensive specialised hospitals in northwest Ethiopia.
participantsOverall, 384 geriatric patients with chronic conditions and current medication use who visited the adult emergency department of the hospital from 10 January 2025 to 30 March 2025 were involved in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Magnitude and types of MDs, acceptance of pharmacist interventions, and factors associated with MDs.
resultsIn total, 384 patients with chronic diseases visiting the hospital emergency department were recruited in the present study. Out of 384 patients involved in the study, 218 (56.77%) had encountered at least one MD. Omission error 190 (45.24%) was the most common type of MD, followed by wrong dose 82 (19.50%). Among 420 interventions, 80.48% of the total cases were accepted. Number of previous/home medications (≥5 medicines; adjusted OR (AOR)=3.12; 95% CI 1.190 to 8.151), older age (≥75 years; AOR=1.62; 95% CI 1.054 to 2.495), and number of comorbidities (≥3; AOR=1.65; 95% CI 1.066 to 2.546) were associated factors with MDs.
conclusionThis study revealed a high prevalence of MDs in the emergency department. Polypharmacy, comorbidities and older age were factors associated with MDs. The study findings show the need for a clinical pharmacist-led MedRec implementation to enhance patient safety.
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.