MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583820583 · doi:10.1111/jorc.12107

A FORMAL MEDICATION RECONCILIATION PROGRAMME IN A HAEMODIALYSIS UNIT CAN IDENTIFY MEDICATION DISCREPANCIES AND POTENTIALLY PREVENT ADVERSE DRUG EVENTS

2015· article· en· W1583820583 on OpenAlexaff
Winnie Chan, Geetha Mahalingam, Robert Richardson, Olavo Fernandes, Marisa Battistella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Renal Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOntario Drug Policy Research NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectDrugDosingPatient safetyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHealth carePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients on haemodialysis have been identified as high-risk for medication discrepancies and adverse drug events. Medication reconciliation is an important patient safety initiative to prevent adverse drug events. The primary objective of our study was to determine the number and types of medication discrepancies and drug therapy problems (DTPs) identified in patients on haemodialysis. Our second objective was to assess the potential clinical impact and severity of all unintentional medication discrepancies identified. METHODS: Patients in an academic haemodialysis unit were interviewed to obtain a best possible medication history (BPMH) between May and August 2010. The BPMH was documented and discrepancies were identified, classified and resolved with the interprofessional team. An interprofessional panel conducted a discrepancy clinical impact assessment for potential adverse drug events. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight patients on haemodialysis were interviewed and 512 discrepancies were identified for 151 patients (3.4 discrepancies per patient). Of these, 174 (34%) were undocumented intentional discrepancies and 338 (66%) were unintentional discrepancies. The unintentional discrepancies were classified as 21% omissions, 36% commissions and 43% incorrect dose/frequency. Most drug therapy problems were related to patient taking a medication that was not indicated (25%), medication required but patient not taking (25%), patient not willing to take the medication as prescribed (28%) or incorrect dosing of a drug (20%). Overall, 6% of discrepancies were classified as clinically significant potential adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Medication discrepancies appear to be common in patients on haemodialysis. Formal interprofessional medication reconciliation practice models are essential to identify discrepancies and prevent patients from experiencing adverse drug events.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Renal CareSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207