MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751065605 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v70i4.1675

Reliability of Best Possible Medication Histories Completed by Non-admitted Patients in the Emergency Department

2017· article· en· W2751065605 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicole Macdonald, Leslie Manuel, Haley Brennan, Erin Musgrave, Richard Wanbon, George Stoica

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee HospitalHorizon Health NetworkIsland HealthSaint John Regional HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreMoncton Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineTriagePharmacyEmergency medicineMinor (academic)Medical emergencyAccreditationFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: Accreditation standards have outlined the need for staff in emergency departments to initiate the medication reconciliation process for patients who are at risk of adverse drug events. The authors hypothesized that a guided form could be used by non-admitted patients in the emergency department to assist with completion of a best possible medication history (BPMH). Objective: To determine the percentage of patients in the non–acute care area of the emergency department who could complete a guided BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies (defined as no major discrepancies and no more than 1 moderate discrepancy). Methods: This prospective exploratory study was conducted over 4 weeks in February and March 2016. Data were collected using the self-administered BPMH form, patient interviews, and a data collection form. After completion of the guided BPMH form, patients were randomly selected for interview by a pharmacy team member to ensure their self-completed BPMH forms were complete and accurate. Eligible patients were those with non-acute needs who had undergone triage to the waiting room. Patients who were already admitted and those with immediate triage to the acute care or trauma area of the emergency department were excluded. Results: Of the 160 patients who were interviewed, 146 (91.3%) completed the form with no more than 1 moderate discrepancy (but some number of minor discrepancies). There were no discrepancies in 31 (19.4%) of the BPMH forms, and 101 (63.1%) of the forms had only minor discrepancies. Conclusions: Most of the patients interviewed by the pharmacy team were able to complete the BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies. The self-administered BPMH form would be a useful tool to initiate medication reconciliation in the emergency department for this patient population, but used on its own, it would not be a reliable source of BPMH information, given the relatively low number of patients who completed the form with no discrepancies. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les normes d’agrément ont souligné la nécessité pour le personnel des services des urgences d’amorcer le processus de bilan comparatif des médicaments chez les patients à risque d’événements indésirables liés aux médicaments. Les auteurs ont avancé que des patients au service des urgences ne requérant pas une hospitalisation pourraient remplir un formulaire dirigé et ainsi aider à établir leur meilleur schéma thérapeutique possible (MSTP). Objectif : Déterminer le pourcentage de patients dans l’aire de soins non urgents du service des urgences qui sont en mesure de remplir un formulaire dirigé de MSTP sans divergence cliniquement significative (c’est-à-dire aucune divergence majeure et pas plus d’une divergence modérée). Méthodes : La présente étude préliminaire prospective a été menée sur une période de quatre semaines en février et en mars 2016. Les données ont été recueillies à l’aide d’un formulaire autoadministré de MSTP, d’entrevue avec les patients et d’un formulaire de collecte de données. Une fois les formulaires dirigés de MSTP remplis, des patients ont été sélectionnés aléatoirement et interrogés par un des membres de l’équipe de pharmacie afin de s’assurer de l’exhaustivité et de l’exactitude des renseignements fournis de soi-même. Les patients admissibles à l’étude étaient ceux ne nécessitant pas de soins urgents et ayant passé au triage dans la salle d’attente. Les patients déjà hospitalisés et ceux dirigés immédiatement après le triage dans l’aire de soins urgents ou de trauma du service des urgences ont été exclus. Résultats : Parmi les 160 patients interrogés, 146 (91,3 %) avaient rempli le formulaire avec au plus une divergence modérée (mais un certain nombre de divergences mineures). Dans 31 (19,4 %) des formulaires de MSTP, il n’y avait aucune divergence et, dans 101 (63,1 %) des formulaires, il n’y avait que des divergences mineures. Conclusions : La plupart des patients interrogés par l’équipe de pharmacie étaient en mesure de remplir le formulaire de MSTP sans qu’apparaisse de divergence cliniquement significative. Le formulaire autoadministré de MSTP serait un outil pratique pour établir un bilan comparatif des médicaments dans le service des urgences pour cette population de patients, mais employé seul, il ne représenterait pas une source fiable d’information sur le MSTP, compte tenu du nombre relativement restreint de patients ayant rempli le formulaire sans qu’apparaisse de divergence.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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