Failure to follow medication changes made at hospital discharge is associated with adverse events in 30 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hypothesis that nonadherence to medication changes made at hospital discharge is associated with an increased risk of adverse events in the 30 days postdischarge. STUDY SETTING: Patients admitted to hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, between 2014 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. DATA COLLECTION: Nonadherence to medication changes was measured by comparing medications dispensed in the community with those prescribed at hospital discharge. Patient, health system, and drug regimen-level covariates were measured using medical services and pharmacy claims data as well as data abstracted from the patient's hospital chart. Multivariable Cox models were used to determine the association between nonadherence to medication changes and the risk of adverse events. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 2655 patients who met our inclusion criteria, mean age was 69.5 years (SD 14.7) and 1581 (60%) were males. Almost half of patients (n = 1161, 44%) were nonadherent to at least one medication change, and 860 (32%) were readmitted to hospital, visited the emergency department, or died in the 30 days postdischarge. Patients who were not adherent to any of their medication changes had a 35% higher risk of adverse events compared to those who were adherent to all medication changes (1.41 vs 1.27 events/100 person-days, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.06-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of all patients were not adherent to some or all changes made to their medications at hospital discharge. Nonadherence to all changes was associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Interventions addressing barriers to adherence should be considered moving forward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".