ArticleBMC health services research2026
Clinical impact of medication reconciliation on physicians' treatment policies at outpatient clinics: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend implementing medication reconciliation (MR) at every healthcare transition. However, limited research has been conducted in outpatient clinics to explore whether MR affects the physicians' decisions. This study aims to evaluate the clinical impact of MR in these settings, specifically investigating whether MR leads to adjustments in treatment policies. The study also aims to assess the severity of potential harm avoided by these adjustments.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed between 1 June 2019 to 18 April 2022 at Maastricht University Medical Center+, The Netherlands, involving 20 different outpatient clinics. All patients who had an appointment at one of the involved clinics were assessed for eligibility (n = 3,031). Pharmacy technicians obtained the best possible medication history (BPMH) through MR. The BPMH was shared with the physician after the patient's visit. The physician could adjust his initial treatment policy based on the new information provided with the BPMH. The physician scored the severity of these policy adjustments, using the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) index. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a policy adjustment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with potential severe harm and the physician's perceived value of the BMPH for possible future treatment. Descriptive data analysis was used.
resultsIn total, 2,289 patients were included (mean age: 59, 47.6% male). MR in outpatient clinics resulted in treatment policy adjustments by physicians in 3.8% of patients, with physicians deeming 0.5% of all MRs necessary to prevent severe harm. Physicians considered the BPMH valuable for future treatment in 13.8% of patients.
conclusionRoutine medication reconciliation for all patients at every outpatient visit is not justified by this study. Future research should focus on identifying high-risk patient who would benefit most from MR in outpatient clinics.
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.