Title |
In-hospital prescription changes and documentation in the medical records of the primary care provider: results from a medical record review study
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12913-017-2738-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Judith M. Poldervaart, Marije A. van Melle, Sanne Willemse, Niek J. de Wit, Dorien L.M. Zwart |
Abstract |
An increasing number of transitions due to substitution of care of more complex patients urges insight in and improvement of transitional medication safety. While lack of documentation of prescription changes and/or lack of information exchange between settings likely cause adverse drug events, frequency of occurrence of these causes is not clear. Therefore, we aimed at determining the frequency of in-hospital patients’ prescription changes that are not or incorrectly documented in their primary care provider’s (PCP) medical record. A medical record review study was performed in a database linking patients’ medical records of hospital and PCP. A random sample (n = 600) was drawn from all 1399 patients who were registered at a participating primary care practice as well as the gastroenterology or cardiology department in 2013 of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Outcomes were the number of in-hospital prescription changes that was not or incorrectly documented in the medical record of the PCP, and timeliness of documentation. Records of 390 patients included one or more primary-secondary care transitions; in total we identified 1511 transitions. During these transitions, 408 in-hospital prescription changes were made, of which 31% was not or incorrectly documented in the medical record of the PCP within the next 3 months. In case changes were documented, the median number of days between hospital visit and documentation was 3 (IQR 0–18). One third of in-hospital prescription changes was not or incorrectly documented in the PCP’s record, which likely puts patients at risk of adverse drug events after hospital visits. Such flawed reliability of a routine care process is unacceptable and warrants improvement and close monitoring. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
Researcher | 5 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
Other | 3 | 7% |
Unknown | 20 | 44% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 11% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 20 | 44% |