Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42470584›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026

Causes and types of voluntarily reported unintentional medication discrepancies in care transitions: a cross-sectional study.

Betsie Limmen, Joy van Broekhuizen, Rob Essink, Judith de Ruijter-van Dalem, Linda van Eikenhorst, Patricia M L A van den Bemt, Fatma Karapinar-Çarkit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Betsie LimmenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, PO Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Joy van BroekhuizenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rob EssinkDutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Judith de Ruijter-van DalemDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, PO Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Linda van EikenhorstDepartment of Organization and Quality of Care, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Patricia M L A van den BemtDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fatma Karapinar-ÇarkitDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, PO Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. f.karapinar@mumc.nl.

Funding

Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport 201865006.028.111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedication incident reporting systems enable healthcare professionals to report incidents and their analysis may help prevent reoccurrences. While previous research has primarily focused on medication errors in general, incidents involving unintentional medication discrepancies remain unexplored.

aimTherefore, this study aimed to identify the causes of voluntarily reported medication incidents describing unintentional medication discrepancies occurring in care transitions. The secondary objective was to characterise the reported medication incidents regarding type of incident, medication involved, whether the incident reached the patient, and the transfer moment involved.

methodThis cross-sectional study used data from the National Medication Incident Reporting database of the Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine. This database contains medication incidents, mainly reported by healthcare professionals in hospitals. Incidents were included if they described an unintentional medication discrepancy in a care transition. The primary outcome was the cause of the reported incident independently determined by two researchers using the Prevention and Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis model (PRISMA-Medical). Secondary outcomes were the incident type (e.g., omissions or dose discrepancies), the medication involved, whether the incident reached the patient, and the transfer moment. Descriptive statistics were used for data-analysis (frequencies and percentages).

resultsA total of 32,261 incidents were reported in the study period, of which 992 (3.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Most incidents were attributed to human factors (n = 932; 94.0%), with verification errors (n = 492; 49.6%) and intervention errors (n = 246; 24.8%) being the most common. Organisational and technical causes accounted for 40 (4.0%) and 20 (2.0%) incidents, respectively. Omissions represented the most frequent type of discrepancies (n = 354; 36.2% of 978 reported discrepancy types), and cardiovascular medication was most frequently involved (n = 339; 24.9% of 1,360 reported medications). Among incidents with available data (n = 599), 444 (74.1%) reached the patient. Most incidents occurred at hospital admission (n = 679; 71.4% of 951 incidents with data available) and discharge (n = 229; 24.1%).

conclusionMost reported incidents in care transitions were attributable to human error. These findings highlight the need for better preventive measures, e.g. patient-centred medication reconciliation to enhance patient safety.

Indexed as

Medication ErrorsMedication ReconciliationPatient TransferRisk ManagementCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsHuman errorMedication ReconciliationMedication safetyRisk ManagementTransitional care

Identifiers

PMID42470584
PMCPMC13569517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.