Trial reportBMJ health & care informatics2026
Does the accuracy of medication administration documentation improve with electronic medication systems? A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAccurate documentation of medication administration is crucial for patient safety. This study compares the accuracy of documentation between paper-based and electronic medication management (eMM) systems.
methodsA secondary analysis of data from a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial of an eMM implementation was conducted. The eMM module allowed electronic prescribing, recording of drug dispensing, drug administration and medication reconciliation and monitoring. Medication administration processes were observed in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Sydney, Australia. Trained nurse observers recorded details of medication administrations which were then compared with the information documented by nurses about the administrations.
results5095 administrations were analysed. With eMM compared with paper, significantly fewer administrations had no time documented (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.15; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; p<0.001), but documented details were more often inaccurate (aOR 4.6; 95% CI 3.3 to 6.6). Fewer doses were administered from incorrect prescriptions with eMM (aOR 0.25; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36).
conclusioneMM improves certain aspects of documentation but introduces new challenges, particularly in accurately recording administration details. Further investigation is needed to optimise these systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 370325.
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.