Assessing the Impact of an Advanced Clinical Decision Support System on Medication Safety and Hospital Readmissions in an Innovative Transitional Care Model: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Adverse drug events and inappropriate use of medications lead to hospitalizations, medication-related morbidity, and mortality. This study examined whether a novel medication risk prediction tool, the MedWise Risk Score™, was associated with medication safety-related problem (MRP) identification and whether integration into an existing innovative transitions of care (TOC) service could decrease readmissions. (2) Methods: This retrospective comparator group study assessed patients discharged from a hospital in southern Arizona between January and December 2020. Participants were included in the study if they were 18 years of age or older, referred to the pharmacist for TOC services, and received a pharmacist consultation within one-week post discharge. Patients were categorized into two groups: (1) medication safety review (MSR)-TOC service (intervention) or (2) existing innovative TOC service (control). (3) Results: Of 164 participants, most were male (57%) and were between 70−79 years of age. Overall, there were significantly more drug-drug interactions (DDI) MRPs identified per patient in the intervention vs. control group for those who were readmitted (3.7 ± 1.5 vs. 0.9 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and those who were not readmitted (2 ± 1.3 vs. 1.3 ± 1.2, p = 0.0120). Furthermore, of those who were readmitted, the average number of identified MRPs per patient was greater in the intervention group compared to the control (6.3 vs. 2.5, respectively, p > 0.05). Relative to the control, the readmission frequency was 30% lower in the treatment group; however, there was insufficient power to detect significant differences between groups. (4) Conclusions: The integration of a medication risk prediction tool into this existing TOC service identified more DDI MRPs compared to the previous innovative TOC service, which lends evidence that supports its ability to prevent readmissions. Future work is warranted to demonstrate the longitudinal impact of this intervention in a larger sample size.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".