| Title |
To what extent is clinical and laboratory information used to perform medication reviews in the nursing home setting? the CLEAR study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s77428 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo, Kim PGM Hurkens, Hugo AJM de Wit, Brigit PC van Oijen, Rob Janknegt, Jos MGA Schols, Wubbo J Mulder, Frans R Verhey, Bjorn Winkens, Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate to what extent laboratory data, actual medication, medical history, and/or drug indication influence the quality of medication reviews for nursing home patients. Forty-six health care professionals from different fields were requested to perform medication reviews for three different cases. Per case, the amount of information provided varied in three subsequent stages: stage 1, medication list only; stage 2, adding laboratory data and reason for hospital admission; and stage 3, adding medical history/drug indication. Following a slightly modified Delphi method, a multidisciplinary team performed the medication review for each case and stage. The results of these medication reviews were used as reference reviews (gold standard). The remarks from the participants were scored, according to their potential clinical impact, from relevant to harmful on a scale of 3 to -1. A total score per case and stage was calculated and expressed as a percentage of the total score from the expert panel for the same case and stage. The overall mean percentage over all cases, stages, and groups was 37.0% when compared with the reference reviews. For one of the cases, the average score decreased significantly from 40.0% in stage 1, to 30.9% in stage 2, and 27.9% in stage 3; no significant differences between stages was found for the other cases. The low performance, against the gold standard, of medication reviews found in the present study highlights that information is incorrectly used or wrongly interpreted, irrespective of the available information. Performing medication reviews without using the available information in an optimal way can have potential implications for patient safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,141,226
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#256
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,430
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.