MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378715823 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002211

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care

2023· article· en· W4378715823 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melanie Powis, Celina Dara, Alyssa Macedo, Saidah Hack, L Ma, Ernie Mak, Lyndon Morley, Vishal Kukreti, Hemangi Dave, Ryan Kirkby, Monika K. Krzyzanowska

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Association of Medical OncologistsPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyBest practiceFamily medicineOutpatient clinicCancerMedical emergencyAmbulatory careWork (physics)NursingHealth carePolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.553
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207