Ambulatory medication safety in primary care – A systematic review of its measurements and outcomes

Richard A Young, Timothy Kenny, Noah Hendrix, Anna M. Espinoza, Kimberly G. Fulda, Yan Xiao, Ayse P Gurses
{"title":"Ambulatory medication safety in primary care – A systematic review of its measurements and outcomes","authors":"Richard A Young, Timothy Kenny, Noah Hendrix, Anna M. Espinoza, Kimberly G. Fulda, Yan Xiao, Ayse P Gurses","doi":"10.1370/afm.20.s1.2821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Medication safety is a concern in primary care, but its measurement may be complex and implications uncertain. Objective: To review of the literature of medication safety in primary care in the electronic health record era, examining the definitions and instruments used, and the primary outcomes. Study Design and Analysis: Systematic Review Dataset: Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from January 1999 to December 2020, supplemented with hand searches. Included Studies: Studies measuring rates and outcomes of medication errors in primary care clinics with electronic prescribing managed by primary care physicians/teams. 4 investigators independently reviewed titles and analyzed abstracts with dual-reviewer review for eligibility, characteristics, and risk of bias. All identified observational studies were determined to be at low risk of bias, there were some biases in the intervention studies. Results: Of 1,464 articles identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria. 42 studies were observational and 14 included an intervention. The majority of the studies (29) used their own definition of error. Others used Beers list (1 4), Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions (STOPP) (13), and other definitions (including 10 studies that used more than one method). The most common outcomes were potentially inappropriate prescribing/medications (PIP) (42), adverse drug events (ADEs) (12), and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) (5). Most of the studies only included high-risk sub-populations (38), usually older adults taking > 4 medications. The rate of PIPs varied widely (0.19% to 98.2%). High-risk populations with measurements of multiple clinic visits yielded the highest PIP rates. The rate of ADEs was lower (0.47% to 14.7%). Less commonly measured outcomes were ED visits and hospitalization associated with ADEs (6). No studies adjusted results for","PeriodicalId":227441,"journal":{"name":"Prescribing and pharmacotherapeutics","volume":"279 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prescribing and pharmacotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.20.s1.2821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Medication safety is a concern in primary care, but its measurement may be complex and implications uncertain. Objective: To review of the literature of medication safety in primary care in the electronic health record era, examining the definitions and instruments used, and the primary outcomes. Study Design and Analysis: Systematic Review Dataset: Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from January 1999 to December 2020, supplemented with hand searches. Included Studies: Studies measuring rates and outcomes of medication errors in primary care clinics with electronic prescribing managed by primary care physicians/teams. 4 investigators independently reviewed titles and analyzed abstracts with dual-reviewer review for eligibility, characteristics, and risk of bias. All identified observational studies were determined to be at low risk of bias, there were some biases in the intervention studies. Results: Of 1,464 articles identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria. 42 studies were observational and 14 included an intervention. The majority of the studies (29) used their own definition of error. Others used Beers list (1 4), Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions (STOPP) (13), and other definitions (including 10 studies that used more than one method). The most common outcomes were potentially inappropriate prescribing/medications (PIP) (42), adverse drug events (ADEs) (12), and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) (5). Most of the studies only included high-risk sub-populations (38), usually older adults taking > 4 medications. The rate of PIPs varied widely (0.19% to 98.2%). High-risk populations with measurements of multiple clinic visits yielded the highest PIP rates. The rate of ADEs was lower (0.47% to 14.7%). Less commonly measured outcomes were ED visits and hospitalization associated with ADEs (6). No studies adjusted results for
初级保健的门诊用药安全——对其测量和结果的系统回顾
背景:药物安全是初级保健关注的问题,但其测量可能是复杂的和不确定的影响。目的:回顾电子病历时代初级保健用药安全的文献,检查其定义、使用的工具和主要结局。研究设计和分析:系统评价数据集:Medline, EMBASE和SCOPUS, 1999年1月至2020年12月,辅以手工检索。纳入的研究:测量初级保健诊所中由初级保健医生/团队管理的电子处方的药物错误率和结果的研究。4名研究者通过双审稿人对标题、特征和偏倚风险进行独立评审和摘要分析。所有确定的观察性研究都被确定为低偏倚风险,干预研究中存在一些偏倚。结果:纳入1464篇文献,56篇符合纳入标准。42项研究是观察性的,14项包括干预。大多数研究(29项)使用了他们自己对误差的定义。其他人使用比尔斯列表(14),老年人处方筛选工具(STOPP)(13)和其他定义(包括使用多种方法的10项研究)。最常见的结果是潜在的不适当的处方/药物(PIP)(42),药物不良事件(ADEs)(12)和潜在的处方遗漏(PPO)(5)。大多数研究只包括高危亚人群(38),通常是服用4种以上药物的老年人。pip率差异很大(0.19% ~ 98.2%)。多次就诊的高危人群的PIP发生率最高。ade发生率较低(0.47% ~ 14.7%)。较少测量的结果是ED就诊和住院与ade相关(6)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信