↓ Skip to main content

Medication histories by pharmacy technicians and physicians in an emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Medication histories by pharmacy technicians and physicians in an emergency department
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11096-015-0172-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolene Pilegaaard Henriksen, Susanne Noerregaard, Thomas Croft Buck, Lise Aagaard

Abstract

Background Medication histories (MHs) obtained at the time of patients' admission to hospital are often incomplete, and lack of information about patients' actual medicine use can potentially lead to prescribing failures and serious adverse events. Uses of clinical pharmacists in obtaining MHs are beneficial, but due to limited economic resources clinical pharmacists cannot be present in every hospital ward, and therefore pharmacy technicians (PTs) could probably be trained in obtaining MHs. Objective To compare discrepancies in MHs obtained by physicians and PTs in an emergency department. Second to evaluate, whether PTs could assist and/or replace physicians in obtaining MHs. Methods The study was conducted in the emergency department at Svendborg Hospital, Denmark and patients treated with a minimum of three prescribed medicines were included. On patients' admission to hospital, physicians recorded the primary MHs, and within 48 h the secondary MHs were made by PTs. All MHs were conducted using standard guidelines. A clinical pharmacist reviewed the MHs, and based on these reviews, a final medication list was defined, and the MHs were compared to this. The discrepancies were registered with respect to type and therapeutic group (medicines). Results A total of 113 patients were included in this study, and data for 106 patients were analysed. On average, three discrepancies were detected for each patient in the primary MHs, and less than one discrepancy per patient in the secondary MHs. A total of 1075 prescriptions were registered, and for the physicians, 287 discrepancies (27 % of total prescriptions) were found, and for PTs the number was 28 (2 % of total prescriptions). The commonly detected discrepancy was "drug missing in the electronic patient record". The largest number of discrepancies was found for nervous system medications (ATC group N), medicines from ATC group A (alimentary tract and metabolism) and respiratory medicine (ATC group R). Conclusion Fewer discrepancies in the MHs obtained by PTs than physicians were detected compared to standard medicine lists made by an experienced clinical pharmacist.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,425,370
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#875
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,941
of 264,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.