当面用药史采集率与混合用药史采集率的比较:多站点试点研究

IF 0.8 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Hospital Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-01-04 DOI:10.1177/00185787231222155
Amee Joshi, K. Smetana, Lisa Mostafavifar, Maggie Sherry, Bella H. Mehta
{"title":"当面用药史采集率与混合用药史采集率的比较:多站点试点研究","authors":"Amee Joshi, K. Smetana, Lisa Mostafavifar, Maggie Sherry, Bella H. Mehta","doi":"10.1177/00185787231222155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Medication history is the method many organizations use to adhere to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) to communicate accurate patient medication information. Literature is sparse comparing the number of medication histories completed in-person versus virtually. Methods: This is a single system, multi-site, retrospective observational study. Patients included were admitted through the Emergency Department during October 2022. The primary aim of this study compared the percent capture rates of medication history between 2 hybrid sites to an in-person site within a health-system. Our secondary objective compared the differences in the ‘medication history acuity score’ (MHAS), defined as the total number of edits, additions, and deletions made during a medication history. Results: The medication history capture rate at the in-person site was 74% and at the hybrid sites were 91% and 80%. There were no differences in total medications on each medication history between in-person and hybrid (11 [5-16] vs 11 [6-16]; P = .252). There were no differences in changes made on medication histories between in-person and hybrid (4 [1-7] vs 3 [1-7]; P = .595). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that medication history capture rates and MHAS are comparable in both in-person and hybrid environments. This similarity suggests the feasibility of implementing hybrid models for medication history services in diverse healthcare settings, potentially enhancing the capacity of health systems to meet TJC NPSG. These findings indicate that hybrid models could be an effective strategy for healthcare systems to optimize their medication history services, especially in settings with varied patient volumes and site specialties.","PeriodicalId":13002,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Medication History Capture Rates In-Person Versus Hybrid: A Multisite Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"Amee Joshi, K. Smetana, Lisa Mostafavifar, Maggie Sherry, Bella H. Mehta\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00185787231222155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Medication history is the method many organizations use to adhere to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) to communicate accurate patient medication information. Literature is sparse comparing the number of medication histories completed in-person versus virtually. Methods: This is a single system, multi-site, retrospective observational study. Patients included were admitted through the Emergency Department during October 2022. The primary aim of this study compared the percent capture rates of medication history between 2 hybrid sites to an in-person site within a health-system. Our secondary objective compared the differences in the ‘medication history acuity score’ (MHAS), defined as the total number of edits, additions, and deletions made during a medication history. Results: The medication history capture rate at the in-person site was 74% and at the hybrid sites were 91% and 80%. There were no differences in total medications on each medication history between in-person and hybrid (11 [5-16] vs 11 [6-16]; P = .252). There were no differences in changes made on medication histories between in-person and hybrid (4 [1-7] vs 3 [1-7]; P = .595). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that medication history capture rates and MHAS are comparable in both in-person and hybrid environments. This similarity suggests the feasibility of implementing hybrid models for medication history services in diverse healthcare settings, potentially enhancing the capacity of health systems to meet TJC NPSG. These findings indicate that hybrid models could be an effective strategy for healthcare systems to optimize their medication history services, especially in settings with varied patient volumes and site specialties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital Pharmacy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787231222155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787231222155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:用药史是许多机构用来遵守联合委员会(TJC)国家患者安全目标(NPSG)的方法,以传达准确的患者用药信息。比较亲自完成和虚拟完成的用药史数量的文献很少。方法:这是一项单一系统、多站点的回顾性观察研究。研究对象为 2022 年 10 月通过急诊科入院的患者。本研究的主要目的是比较医疗系统内 2 个混合站点与亲临现场站点之间的用药史采集率百分比。我们的次要目标是比较 "用药史敏锐度评分"(MHAS)的差异,该评分定义为用药史中编辑、添加和删除的总数。结果面对面地点的用药史采集率为 74%,混合地点的采集率分别为 91% 和 80%。在每次用药记录中,亲自用药和混合用药之间的用药总量没有差异(11 [5-16] vs 11 [6-16];P = .252)。亲自到场和混合到场在用药记录上所做的更改没有差异(4 [1-7] vs 3 [1-7];P = .595)。结论:我们的研究表明,面对面和混合式环境下的用药史采集率和 MHAS 具有可比性。这种相似性表明,在不同的医疗机构中实施混合模式的用药史服务是可行的,有可能提高医疗系统满足 TJC NPSG 的能力。这些研究结果表明,混合模式可以成为医疗保健系统优化用药史服务的有效策略,尤其是在患者数量和医疗机构专业性各不相同的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing Medication History Capture Rates In-Person Versus Hybrid: A Multisite Pilot Study
Purpose: Medication history is the method many organizations use to adhere to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) to communicate accurate patient medication information. Literature is sparse comparing the number of medication histories completed in-person versus virtually. Methods: This is a single system, multi-site, retrospective observational study. Patients included were admitted through the Emergency Department during October 2022. The primary aim of this study compared the percent capture rates of medication history between 2 hybrid sites to an in-person site within a health-system. Our secondary objective compared the differences in the ‘medication history acuity score’ (MHAS), defined as the total number of edits, additions, and deletions made during a medication history. Results: The medication history capture rate at the in-person site was 74% and at the hybrid sites were 91% and 80%. There were no differences in total medications on each medication history between in-person and hybrid (11 [5-16] vs 11 [6-16]; P = .252). There were no differences in changes made on medication histories between in-person and hybrid (4 [1-7] vs 3 [1-7]; P = .595). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that medication history capture rates and MHAS are comparable in both in-person and hybrid environments. This similarity suggests the feasibility of implementing hybrid models for medication history services in diverse healthcare settings, potentially enhancing the capacity of health systems to meet TJC NPSG. These findings indicate that hybrid models could be an effective strategy for healthcare systems to optimize their medication history services, especially in settings with varied patient volumes and site specialties.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hospital Pharmacy
Hospital Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Hospital Pharmacy is a monthly peer-reviewed journal that is read by pharmacists and other providers practicing in the inpatient and outpatient setting within hospitals, long-term care facilities, home care, and other health-system settings The Hospital Pharmacy Assistant Editor, Michael R. Cohen, RPh, MS, DSc, FASHP, is author of a Medication Error Report Analysis and founder of The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), a nonprofit organization that provides education about adverse drug events and their prevention.
期刊最新文献
Cefepime/Enmetazobactam. Impact of a Medication Reconciliation Improvement Package on Adherence to Medication Reconciliation Among Internal Medicine Physicians: A Quality Improvement Project in a Lower-Middle Income Country. Implementing Research Into Practice as a Clinical Based New Practitioner Pharmacist. Phytonadione Utilization and the Risk of Bleeding in Chronic Liver Disease. Safety and Efficacy of Switching Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists to Tirzepatide: A Case Series.
×
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