↓ Skip to main content

Examining patterns in medication documentation of trade and generic names in an academic family practice training centre

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examining patterns in medication documentation of trade and generic names in an academic family practice training centre
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1015-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Summers, Carly Ruderman, Fok-Han Leung, Morgan Slater

Abstract

Studies in the United States have shown that physicians commonly use brand names when documenting medications in an outpatient setting. However, the prevalence of prescribing and documenting brand name medication has not been assessed in a clinical teaching environment. The purpose of this study was to describe the use of generic versus brand names for a select number of pharmaceutical products in clinical documentation in a large, urban academic family practice centre. A retrospective chart review of the electronic medical records of the St. Michael's Hospital Academic Family Health Team (SMHAFHT). Data for twenty commonly prescribed medications were collected from the Cumulative Patient Profile as of August 1, 2014. Each medication name was classified as generic or trade. Associations between documentation patterns and physician characteristics were assessed. Among 9763 patients prescribed any of the twenty medications of interest, 45% of patient charts contained trade nomenclature exclusively. 32% of charts contained only generic nomenclature, and 23% contained a mix of generic and trade nomenclature. There was large variation in use of generic nomenclature amongst physicians, ranging from 19% to 93%. Trade names in clinical documentation, which likely reflect prescribing habits, continue to be used abundantly in the academic setting. This may become part of the informal curriculum, potentially facilitating undue bias in trainees. Further study is needed to determine characteristics which influence use of generic or trade nomenclature and the impact of this trend on trainees' clinical knowledge and decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
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 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,631
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,471
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#46
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 318,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.