Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Saskatchewan Health Pharmaceutical Information Program for Determining a Patient’s Medication Use Immediately before Admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pharmaceutical Information Program (PIP) administered by Saskatchewan Health provides records for individual patients of prescription medications and some over-the-counter products obtained with a prescription and processed through the provincial drug plan. Use of the PIP to assist in obtaining a medication history on admission to hospital has been advocated; however, the accuracy of the database has never been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent of agreement between a patient's PIP profile and a Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) for determining the patient's prescription medication use on admission to hospital. METHODS: General medicine patients admitted to 1 of the 2 clinical teaching units at the authors' hospital were reviewed for eligibility. A copy of the patient's PIP profile was printed, reviewed, and used in the course of obtaining a BPMH from consenting patients. The number and type of medication discrepancies and the time required to complete medication histories were documented. RESULTS: Fifty patients were interviewed. For 39 patients (78%), one or more prescription discrepancies were identified between the PIP profile and the BPMH (mean 2.0, standard deviation 2.3, range 0-6). The top 3 prescription discrepancies were medication incorrectly appeared inactive in the PIP profile (49/101 discrepancies [49%]), dosing discrepancy (28/101 [28%]), and medication did not appear in the PIP profile (13/101 [13%]). The most common reasons for prescription discrepancies were recent change in dosage or medication (18 [18%]), compliance packaging (13 [13%]), noncompliance (12 [12%]), and entry error at the dispensing pharmacy (12 [12%]). Mean total time to prepare for and conduct interviews was 22.5 min (range 10-54 min). CONCLUSION: A patient's PIP profile may contain incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information. Although the profile may be used to prompt the health care provider during a BPMH interview, it should never be used as a substitute for communicating directly with the patient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".