MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484377241 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v61i2.27

Use of Patients’ Own Medications in Canadian Hospitals: A National Survey

2008· article· en· W1484377241 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather L Lummis, Ingrid Sketris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyMedicineFamily medicineEmergency medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective: Patients’ own medications are medications that patients have obtained in the community setting and have brought with them to the hospital on admission. How such medications are used in Canadian hospitals is not well understood. The objectives of the study were to determine current practices and policies related to patients’ own medications. Methods: Surveys were sent by e-mail to 166 individual addresses for Canadian hospitals with at least 50 acute care beds. Results: Eighty-six hospitals responded (response rate 52%) (but some hospitals did not answer all questions). Use of patients’ own medications was allowed only when necessary by 89% (76/85) of the hospitals, was actively encouraged by 8% (7/85), and was not allowed by 2% (2/85). The most common types of medications allowed were drugs not included in the hospital’s formulary and those not routinely stocked by the hospital, as well as prepackaged, investigational, and multidose medications. Most hospitals (72% [62/86]) had a policy on patients’ own medications, and 70% (57/82) required a physician’s order to use such medications. The perceived advantages of using patients’ own medications were cost savings (67% [48/72]) and decreased inventory (57% [41/72]). The main disadvantages cited were the potential for medication errors (51% [35/69]), loss of the medications in the hospital (32% [22/69]) and the time required to manage such medications (32% [22/69]). Conclusions: Allowing the use of patients’ own medications was common in the Canadian hospitals that responded to this survey, although respondents did identify some concerns with the practice. To address these concerns, it is recommended that hospitals develop identification, storage, and documentation procedures for patients’ own medications. The costs and benefits of using these medications need further evaluation. RESUME Objectif : Les propres medicaments des patients sont definis comme les medicaments qu’ils ont obtenus dans la communaute et qu’ils ont apportes lors de leur hospitalisation. L’utilisation de ces medicaments dans les hopitaux canadiens demeure obscure. Les objectifs de cette etude sont de determiner les pratiques et les politiques courantes relativement a l’emploi des propres medicaments des patients dans les hopitaux. Methodes : Un sondage a ete envoye par courriel a 166 adresses electroniques individuelles d’hopitaux canadiens d’au moins 50 lits de soins de courte duree. Resultats : En tout, 86 hopitaux ont repondu (taux de reponse de 52 %), bien que certains d’entre eux aient omis des questions. L’utilisation des propres medicaments des patients etait permise uniquement lorsque cela etait necessaire par 89 % (76/85) des hopitaux, etait fortement encouragee par 8% (7/85), et n’etait pas permise par 2 % (2/85). Les propres medicaments des patients le plus souvent autorises etaient ceux non inscrits au formulaire ou que l’hopital ne tenait pas en stock, de meme que les medicaments preemballes, les medicaments de recherche et les medicaments multidoses. La plupart des hopitaux (72 %; 62/86) avaient une politique sur l’utilisation des propres medicaments des patients, et 70 % (57/82) exigeaient une ordonnance du medecin pour utiliser ces medicaments. Les avantages percus de l’utilisation des propres medicaments des patients etaient les economies de couts (67 %; 48/72) et la reduction des stocks (57 %; 41/72). Les principaux desavantages cites etaient le risque d’erreur de medication (51 %; 35/69) et de perte des medicaments dans l’hopital (32 %; 22/69), ainsi que le temps necessaire a la gestion de ces medicaments (32 %; 22/69). Conclusions : L’autorisation d’utiliser les propres medicaments des patients dans les hopitaux canadiens sondes est frequente, quoique les repondants aient souleve certaines inquietudes relativement a cette pratique. Pour apaiser ces inquietudes, on recommande que les hopitaux mettent en place une procedure d’identification, d’entreposage et d’enregistrement des propres medicaments des patients. Les couts et les avantages lies a l’utilisation de ces medicaments doivent etre evalues plus avant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207