MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510139888 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1453

Medication Reconciliation Practices in Canadian Emergency Departments: A National Survey

2015· article· en· W1510139888 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Richard Wanbon, Catherine Lyder, Éric Villeneuve, Stephen Shalansky, Leslie Manuel, Melanie Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesProvidence Health CareCanadian Pharmacists AssociationRoyal Jubilee HospitalMcGill University Health CentreHorizon Health NetworkIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyStaffingAccreditationPharmacistEmergency departmentMedicineClinical pharmacyFamily medicinePharmacy technicianHealth careMedical emergencyNursingMedical educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As of 2015, Accreditation Canada’s Qmentum program expects emergency departments (EDs) to initiate medication reconciliation for 2 groups of patients: (1) those with a decision to admit and (2) those without a decision to admit who meet the criteria of a risk-based, health care organization–defined selection process. Pharmacist-led best possible medication histories (BPMHs) obtained in the ED are considered more complete and accurate than BPMHs obtained by other ED providers, with pharmacy technicians obtaining BPMHs as effectively as do pharmacists. A current assessment of the role of pharmacy in BPMH processes in Canadian EDs is lacking.Objectives: To identify and describe BPMH and medication reconciliation practices in Canadian EDs, including those performed by members of the ED pharmacy team.Methods: All Canadian hospitals with an ED and at least 50 acute care beds were contacted to identify the presence of dedicated ED pharmacy services (defined as at least a 0.5 full-time equivalent position). Different electronic surveys were then distributed to ED pharmacy team members (where available) and ED managers (all hospitals).Results: Survey responses were obtained from 60 (63%) of 95 ED pharmacy teams and 128 (53%) of 243 ED managers. Only 38 (30%) of the 128 ED managers believed that their current BPMH processes were adequate to obtain a BPMH for all admissions. Fifty-nine (98%) of the ED pharmacy personnel reported obtaining BPMHs (most commonly 6–10 per day), with priority given to admitted patients. Only 14 (23%) of the 60 ED pharmacy teams reported that their EDs had adequate staffing to comply with Accreditation Canada’s requirements for obtaining BPMHs. This result is supported by the 104 (81%) out of 128 ED managers who reported that additional ED staffing would be needed to comply with the requirements. Numerous ED managers identified the need to expand ED pharmacy services and improve information technology support.Conclusions: BPMH processes in Canadian EDs were variable and inadequately supported. Survey responses suggested that additional staff and significant improvements in structured processes would be required to meet Accreditation Canada standards.RÉSUMÉContexte : À compter de 2015, le programme Qmentum d’Agrément Canada s’attend à ce que les services des urgences réalisent un bilan comparatif des médicaments pour deux groupes de patients : (1) ceux que l’on décide d’admettre et (2) ceux non admis qui présentent un risque d’événements indésirables liés aux médicaments selon des critères élaborés par l’organisme. Les meilleurs schémas thérapeutiques possibles (MSTP) obtenus au service des urgences grâce aux pharmaciens sont considérés comme étant plus complets et précis que ceux dressés par d’autres fournisseurs du service des urgences. De plus, ceux obtenus par les techniciens en pharmacie sont d’une qualité égale à ceux dressés par les pharmaciens. Enfin, il n’y a pas d’évaluation actuelle du rôle joué par le personnel de la pharmacie au sein des processus d’obtention des MSTP dans les services des urgences du Canada.Objectifs : Recenser les pratiques de réalisation des MSTP et des bilans comparatifs des médicaments au sein des services des urgences canadiens, notamment celles des membres des équipes de pharmacie affectés aux services des urgences, et les décrire.Méthodes : On a communiqué avec l’ensemble des hôpitaux canadiens disposant d’un service des urgences et d’au moins 50 lits de soins de courte durée afin de savoir s’ils profitaient de services de pharmacie consacrés au service des urgences (ce qui était défini comme au moins 0,5 d’un poste équivalent temps plein). Différents sondages électroniques ont ensuite été envoyés : un aux membres du personnel de pharmacie affectés aux services des urgences (le cas échéant); et un aux gestionnaires des services des urgences (de tous les hôpitaux).Résultats : Au total, 60 (63 %) des 95 équipes de pharmacie affectées aux services des urgences ont répondu au sondage, et 128 (53 %) des 243 gestionnaires des services des urgences ont fait de même. Seulement 38 (30 %) gestionnaires des services des urgences croyaient que leurs processus actuels convenaient à l’obtention des MSTP pour tous les patients admis. Cinquante-neuf (98 %) équipes de pharmacie affectées aux services des urgences ont déclaré dresser des MSTP (normalement de 6 à 10 par jour), la priorité étant accordée aux patients admis. Seules 14 (23 %) des 60 équipes de pharmacie affectées aux services des urgences jugeaient que leur service des urgences était doté d’un personnel suffisant pour satisfaire aux exigences d’Agrément Canada en ce qui a trait à l’obtention des MSTP. Ce résultat était corroboré par le fait que 104 (81 %) des 128 gestionnaires des services des urgences ont souligné le besoin de personnel supplémentaire au service des urgences afin de pouvoir respecter les exigences. Un grand nombre de gestionnaires des services des urgences ont reconnu la nécessité d’accroître la prestation des services de pharmacie aux services des urgences ainsi que le besoin d’améliorer le soutien par les technologies de l’information.Conclusions : Les processus d’obtention des MSTP dans les services des urgences canadiens variaient et n’avaient pas un soutien adéquat. Les réponses aux sondages semblent indiquer que du personnel supplémentaire de même que d’importantes améliorations des processus structurés seraient nécessaires pour respecter les normes d’Agrément Canada.

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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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