MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107024141 · doi:10.1345/aph.1l190

Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Discharge: Evaluating Discrepancies

2008· article· en· W2107024141 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline D Wong, Jana Bajcar, Gary Wong, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Jin‐Hyeun Huh, Annemarie Cesta, Gregory R. Pond, Olavo Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionEmergency medicineHospital dischargeAdverse effectPatient dischargeMEDLINEPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharge is an interface of care when patients are at a high risk of medication discrepancies as they transition from hospital to home. These discrepancies are important, as they may contribute to drug-related problems, medication errors, and adverse drug events. OBJECTIVE: To identify, characterize, and assess the clinical impact of unintentional medication discrepancies at hospital discharge. METHODS: All consecutive general internal medicine patients admitted for at least 72 hours to a tertiary care teaching hospital were prospectively assessed. Patients were excluded if they were discharged with verbal prescriptions; died during hospitalization; or transferred from or to a nursing home, another institution, or another unit within the same hospital. The primary endpoint was to determine the number of patients with at least one unintended medication discrepancy on hospital discharge. Medication discrepancies were assessed through comparison of a best possible medication discharge list with the actual discharge prescriptions. Secondary objectives were to characterize and assess the potential clinical impact of the unintentional discrepancies. RESULTS: From March 14, 2006, to June 2, 2006, 430 patients were screened for eligibility; 150 patients were included in the study. Overall, 106 (70.7%) patients had at least one actual or potential unintentional discrepancy. Sixty-two patients (41.3%) had at least one actual unintentional medication discrepancy at hospital discharge and 83 patients (55.3%) had at least one potential unintentional discrepancy. The most common unintentional discrepancies were an incomplete prescription requiring clarification, which could result in a patient delay in obtaining medications (49.5%), and the omission of medications (22.9%). Of the 105 unintentional discrepancies, 31(29.5%) had the potential to cause possible or probable patient discomfort and/or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Medication discrepancies occur commonly on hospital discharge. Understanding the type and frequency of discrepancies can help clinicians better understand ways to prevent them. Structured medication reconciliation may help to prevent discharge medication discrepancies.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.138 · 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

Citations318
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207