Effectiveness of a medication discharge plan for transitions of care from hospital to outpatient settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effect of a medication discharge plan (MDP) on the rate of medication discrepancies between hospital and outpatient settings was evaluated. METHODS: In a pragmatic, open, randomized, controlled trial, MDPs were completed for all patients before discharge from the hospital. Patients were then assigned to either an MDP group, for whom MDPs were sent to community pharmacies and treating physicians, or a usual care group, for whom an MDP was not sent. Discrepancies between MDPs and community pharmacy dispensing records and medication use reported by patients during a telephone interview were documented. The percentage of patients with discrepancies and the mean percentage of medications with discrepancies were compared between the two groups. The clinical severity of discrepancies was blindly evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients agreed to participate in the study. The percentage of patients with at least one discrepancy was high and similar in both groups when MDPs were compared with pharmacy dispensing records and patient self-reports. Comparison of MDPs to pharmacy dispensing records revealed discrepancies for 13-15% of medications; more than a third were clinically significant. Comparison of MDPs to patient self-reports revealed discrepancies for 10-12% of medications; 48% were clinically significant. No significant differences were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of medication discrepancies was not decreased in patients whose MDP was provided to their community pharmacy and physician at the time of hospital discharge compared with the rate in patients who received usual care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".