在虚弱评估单元的住院患者环境中,在综合老年评估(CGA)时确定用药史的准确性

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1093/jphsr/rmad012
Lucy Stratton, Nick Thayer, K. Channa
{"title":"在虚弱评估单元的住院患者环境中,在综合老年评估(CGA)时确定用药史的准确性","authors":"Lucy Stratton, Nick Thayer, K. Channa","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmad012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n This retrospective analysis aims to determine the accuracy of medication histories undertaken during a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) (at the point of admission) in an inpatient setting within an acute hospital. The CGA can be completed by a range of healthcare professionals, which will be directly compared. Medication reviews are an integral part of the CGA, therefore the accuracy of the history is integral to the review.\n \n \n \n A retrospective analysis of patient electronic records between October 2018 and February 2020 was conducted. The accuracy of medication histories recorded as part of the CGA completed by Advanced Nurse Practitioners, Advanced Pharmacist Practitioners and Doctors was compared. This was done using electronic records, any discrepancies were captured. Descriptive statistics were applied.\n \n \n \n Across the 50 patients and 421 medicines identified, there were 59 discrepancies; 24 (48%) patients were noted with at least one discrepancy in their medication history. An omission of current medication was the most common error (49%), followed by incorrect dose (19%) and a record of a medication not taken pre-admission (15%). The total number of prescribed medications was found to positively correlate with the rate of error (Pearson’s correlation 0.455, P > 0.001). An independent t-test determined a significant difference between the rate of errors between pharmacists and nurses (t-test: −4.48, P < 0.001).\n \n \n \n This study re-confirmed risks of medication errors when patients change care settings. This is more prevalent with higher numbers of medications, requiring greater care in instances of polypharmacy, particularly in frail patients. This can support risk stratification of patients. A difference in outcomes between pharmacists and nurses warrants further exploration to determine the reasons for this and structuring multi-disciplinary teams accordingly. Consideration to ensure that medication history taking is included as part of the Advanced Clinical Practitioner is important, particularly with the expansion of these roles in the UK.\n","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining the accuracy of a medication history at the point of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments (CGA) within an inpatient setting on a Frailty Assessment Unit\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Stratton, Nick Thayer, K. Channa\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jphsr/rmad012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n This retrospective analysis aims to determine the accuracy of medication histories undertaken during a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) (at the point of admission) in an inpatient setting within an acute hospital. The CGA can be completed by a range of healthcare professionals, which will be directly compared. Medication reviews are an integral part of the CGA, therefore the accuracy of the history is integral to the review.\\n \\n \\n \\n A retrospective analysis of patient electronic records between October 2018 and February 2020 was conducted. The accuracy of medication histories recorded as part of the CGA completed by Advanced Nurse Practitioners, Advanced Pharmacist Practitioners and Doctors was compared. This was done using electronic records, any discrepancies were captured. Descriptive statistics were applied.\\n \\n \\n \\n Across the 50 patients and 421 medicines identified, there were 59 discrepancies; 24 (48%) patients were noted with at least one discrepancy in their medication history. An omission of current medication was the most common error (49%), followed by incorrect dose (19%) and a record of a medication not taken pre-admission (15%). The total number of prescribed medications was found to positively correlate with the rate of error (Pearson’s correlation 0.455, P > 0.001). An independent t-test determined a significant difference between the rate of errors between pharmacists and nurses (t-test: −4.48, P < 0.001).\\n \\n \\n \\n This study re-confirmed risks of medication errors when patients change care settings. This is more prevalent with higher numbers of medications, requiring greater care in instances of polypharmacy, particularly in frail patients. This can support risk stratification of patients. A difference in outcomes between pharmacists and nurses warrants further exploration to determine the reasons for this and structuring multi-disciplinary teams accordingly. Consideration to ensure that medication history taking is included as part of the Advanced Clinical Practitioner is important, particularly with the expansion of these roles in the UK.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":16705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmad012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmad012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本回顾性分析旨在确定急性医院住院患者在综合老年评估(CGA)期间(入院时)进行的用药史的准确性。CGA可以由一系列医疗保健专业人员完成,这些专业人员将直接进行比较。药物审查是CGA的组成部分,因此病史的准确性是审查的组成部分。对2018年10月至2020年2月期间的患者电子记录进行了回顾性分析。对高级执业护士、高级执业药剂师和医生完成的CGA中记录的用药史的准确性进行了比较。这是使用电子记录完成的,任何差异都被记录下来。采用描述性统计。在确定的50名患者和421种药物中,存在59种差异;24名(48%)患者的用药史至少有一处差异。遗漏当前药物是最常见的错误(49%),其次是剂量不正确(19%)和入院前未服用药物的记录(15%)。处方药的总数与错误率呈正相关(Pearson相关系数0.455,P>0.05)。一项独立的t检验确定了药剂师和护士之间的错误率之间的显著差异(t检验:−4.48,P<0.001)。这项研究再次证实了患者改变护理环境时出现药物错误的风险。随着药物数量的增加,这种情况更加普遍,在多药治疗的情况下需要更大的护理,尤其是在虚弱的患者中。这可以支持患者的风险分层。药剂师和护士之间的结果差异需要进一步探索,以确定原因,并相应地组建多学科团队。考虑确保将服药史纳入高级临床从业者是很重要的,尤其是随着这些角色在英国的扩大。
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
Determining the accuracy of a medication history at the point of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments (CGA) within an inpatient setting on a Frailty Assessment Unit
This retrospective analysis aims to determine the accuracy of medication histories undertaken during a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) (at the point of admission) in an inpatient setting within an acute hospital. The CGA can be completed by a range of healthcare professionals, which will be directly compared. Medication reviews are an integral part of the CGA, therefore the accuracy of the history is integral to the review. A retrospective analysis of patient electronic records between October 2018 and February 2020 was conducted. The accuracy of medication histories recorded as part of the CGA completed by Advanced Nurse Practitioners, Advanced Pharmacist Practitioners and Doctors was compared. This was done using electronic records, any discrepancies were captured. Descriptive statistics were applied. Across the 50 patients and 421 medicines identified, there were 59 discrepancies; 24 (48%) patients were noted with at least one discrepancy in their medication history. An omission of current medication was the most common error (49%), followed by incorrect dose (19%) and a record of a medication not taken pre-admission (15%). The total number of prescribed medications was found to positively correlate with the rate of error (Pearson’s correlation 0.455, P > 0.001). An independent t-test determined a significant difference between the rate of errors between pharmacists and nurses (t-test: −4.48, P < 0.001). This study re-confirmed risks of medication errors when patients change care settings. This is more prevalent with higher numbers of medications, requiring greater care in instances of polypharmacy, particularly in frail patients. This can support risk stratification of patients. A difference in outcomes between pharmacists and nurses warrants further exploration to determine the reasons for this and structuring multi-disciplinary teams accordingly. Consideration to ensure that medication history taking is included as part of the Advanced Clinical Practitioner is important, particularly with the expansion of these roles in the UK.
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
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
The revised patient attitudes to deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire: an investigation using a large anonymized database Evaluation of a structured pharmacist-led intervention on glycemic control in underprivileged diabetic patients: a randomized open-label trial Cross-sectional study of pharmacists’ knowledge and beliefs about human papillomavirus, its vaccines, and barriers related to vaccine administration Analysis of cancer drugs receiving FDA’s Accelerated Approval between 1992 and 2021 Navigating digital health: perspectives of Australian community pharmacists—a short communication
×
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