↓ Skip to main content

Medicines Management, Medication Errors and Adverse Medication Events in Older People Referred to a Community Nursing Service: A Retrospective Observational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs - Real World Outcomes, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Medicines Management, Medication Errors and Adverse Medication Events in Older People Referred to a Community Nursing Service: A Retrospective Observational Study
Published in
Drugs - Real World Outcomes, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40801-016-0065-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohan A. Elliott, Cik Yin Lee, Christine Beanland, Krishna Vakil, Dianne Goeman

Abstract

Increasing numbers of older people are receiving support with medicines management from community nursing services (CNSs) to enable them to live in their own homes. Little is known about these people and the support they receive. To explore the characteristics of older people referred for medicines management support, type of support provided, medication errors and adverse medication events (AMEs). A retrospective observational study of a random sample of 100 older people referred to a large non-profit CNS for medicines management support over a 3-month period was conducted. Measures were: demographics, referral source, current medical problems, medicines, medication aids, types of medication authorisations used by nurses, frequency of nurse visits and type of support provided, medication errors, AMEs and interdisciplinary teamwork among community nurses, general practitioners and pharmacists. Older people (median 80 years) were referred for medicines support most often by hospitals (39 %). Other referrals were from families/carers, case-managers, palliative care services and general practitioners. Multiple health conditions (median 5) and medicines (median 10) were common; 66 % used ≥5 medicines; 48 % used ≥1 high-risk medicines-most commonly opiates, anticoagulants and insulin. Medication aids were frequently used, mostly multi-compartment dose administration aids (47 %). Most people received regular community nurse visits (≥4 per week) to administer medicines or monitor medicine-taking. Only 16 % had a medication administration chart; for other clients nurses used medicine lists or letters from doctors for medication authorisation. Medication errors occurred in 41 % of people and 13 % had ≥1 AME requiring medical consultation or hospitalisation; 9/13 (64 %) AMEs were potentially preventable. There was little evidence of interdisciplinary teamwork or medication review. CNS clients had multiple risk-factors for medication misadventure. Deficiencies in medicines management were identified, including low use of medication charts and interdisciplinary medication review. Strategies are needed to improve medicines management in the home-care setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 34 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 38 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#7,262,720
of 24,172,513 outputs
Outputs from Drugs - Real World Outcomes
#70
of 208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,713
of 304,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs - Real World Outcomes
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,172,513 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 304,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.