Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Quality and Completeness of Medication-Related Discharge Documentation

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1111/jep.70006
Emma Bertilsson, Victoria Östman, Henrik Cam, Kristin Franzon, Ulrika Gillespie
{"title":"Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Quality and Completeness of Medication-Related Discharge Documentation","authors":"Emma Bertilsson,&nbsp;Victoria Östman,&nbsp;Henrik Cam,&nbsp;Kristin Franzon,&nbsp;Ulrika Gillespie","doi":"10.1111/jep.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Transitions of care are periods of heightened risk of medication management errors. Poor-quality discharge documentation has been linked to incorrect or suboptimal medication use and unplanned hospital visits. Despite regulations defining essential components of medication-related discharge documentation, deficiencies persist, highlighting the need for a method to assess whether current clinical practice meets these standards.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To conduct an initial validation of a newly developed instrument, the Complete Medication Documentation at Discharge – Measure (CMDD-M), assessing the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in a Swedish clinical setting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The instrument was developed and refined in multiple stages. In this study, two clinical pharmacists and one geriatrician independently applied the final instrument to discharge documentation from 50 patients. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was evaluated using linear and quadratic weighted Cohen's <i>κ</i> (<i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup>).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The average CMDD-M score, based on the consensus of the three raters, was 3.40 (SD ± 2.50) out of nine possible points across the patients' discharge documentation. The IRR between the pharmacists' individual assessments demonstrated almost perfect agreement, with <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup> values of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80–1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85–1.00), respectively. Moreover, the IRR between the pharmacists' consolidated score and the geriatrician's assessment displayed a moderate to strong agreement, with <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup> values of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.48–0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64–0.97), respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The CMDD-M demonstrated robust IRR confirming its ability to consistently and accurately measure the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in an easy-to-use form. Further research is recommended to ensure validity, generalisability and association with clinically relevant outcomes supporting the instrument's potential usefulness for evaluating and improving clinical practice and research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Transitions of care are periods of heightened risk of medication management errors. Poor-quality discharge documentation has been linked to incorrect or suboptimal medication use and unplanned hospital visits. Despite regulations defining essential components of medication-related discharge documentation, deficiencies persist, highlighting the need for a method to assess whether current clinical practice meets these standards.

Aims

To conduct an initial validation of a newly developed instrument, the Complete Medication Documentation at Discharge – Measure (CMDD-M), assessing the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in a Swedish clinical setting.

Methods

The instrument was developed and refined in multiple stages. In this study, two clinical pharmacists and one geriatrician independently applied the final instrument to discharge documentation from 50 patients. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was evaluated using linear and quadratic weighted Cohen's κ (κWlinear and κWquadratic).

Results

The average CMDD-M score, based on the consensus of the three raters, was 3.40 (SD ± 2.50) out of nine possible points across the patients' discharge documentation. The IRR between the pharmacists' individual assessments demonstrated almost perfect agreement, with κWlinear and κWquadratic values of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80–1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85–1.00), respectively. Moreover, the IRR between the pharmacists' consolidated score and the geriatrician's assessment displayed a moderate to strong agreement, with κWlinear and κWquadratic values of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.48–0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64–0.97), respectively.

Conclusion

The CMDD-M demonstrated robust IRR confirming its ability to consistently and accurately measure the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in an easy-to-use form. Further research is recommended to ensure validity, generalisability and association with clinically relevant outcomes supporting the instrument's potential usefulness for evaluating and improving clinical practice and research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Trajectories and Influencing Factors of Self-Management Behaviour in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Longitudinal Study Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Quality and Completeness of Medication-Related Discharge Documentation Overcoming the Utopian Perspectives on Health: Health Must Also Include States of Unwell-Being Associations Between COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Persistent Symptoms: A Prospective Study of Reproductive-Age Women A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1