Proposal for a new study design and endpoint in research on medication history taking.

IF 3.3 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20523211.2024.2396967
Theresa Terstegen, Marietta Kirchner, Walter E Haefeli, Hanna M Seidling
{"title":"Proposal for a new study design and endpoint in research on medication history taking.","authors":"Theresa Terstegen, Marietta Kirchner, Walter E Haefeli, Hanna M Seidling","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2024.2396967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medication history errors at hospital admission are common and effective strategies to improve the quality of medication histories are still being researched. However, studies on new approaches regarding medication history taking are often time-consuming and resource-intensive. The gold standard when evaluating the quality of medication histories is the comparison of a <i>Best Possible Medication History</i> to the original. However, this double collection requires significant resources, disrupts clinical procedures, and places an additional burden on patients. Therefore, more efficient study designs need to be explored. We aimed to develop a design for future studies on medication history taking that uses fewer research resources and places less strain on patients and staff.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We first identified shortcomings of the established study designs on medication history taking and subsequently defined requirements for a new design. A pragmatic study with an alternative endpoint was identified in a previous literature search. It served as the starting point from which we developed a new study design to assess the quality of approaches to medication history taking. Instead of taking a second medication history, a patient's pre-existing medication document can be used as comparator to determine the quality of the medication history. Furthermore, we defined a new primary endpoint, <i>i.e.</i> the <i>number of updates per patient</i>. Updates are differences between the newly acquired medication history and the comparator. They include discontinued, initiated, and changed medications. To enhance our proposed design, we recommend a preparatory phase to identify a suitable comparator document, and a baseline phase to assess the current process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We propose a more resource-efficient study design with a new endpoint. We plan to test its feasibility and evaluate whether it could enhance the efficacy of research on medication history taking in a pilot project.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11382705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2396967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Medication history errors at hospital admission are common and effective strategies to improve the quality of medication histories are still being researched. However, studies on new approaches regarding medication history taking are often time-consuming and resource-intensive. The gold standard when evaluating the quality of medication histories is the comparison of a Best Possible Medication History to the original. However, this double collection requires significant resources, disrupts clinical procedures, and places an additional burden on patients. Therefore, more efficient study designs need to be explored. We aimed to develop a design for future studies on medication history taking that uses fewer research resources and places less strain on patients and staff.

Discussion: We first identified shortcomings of the established study designs on medication history taking and subsequently defined requirements for a new design. A pragmatic study with an alternative endpoint was identified in a previous literature search. It served as the starting point from which we developed a new study design to assess the quality of approaches to medication history taking. Instead of taking a second medication history, a patient's pre-existing medication document can be used as comparator to determine the quality of the medication history. Furthermore, we defined a new primary endpoint, i.e. the number of updates per patient. Updates are differences between the newly acquired medication history and the comparator. They include discontinued, initiated, and changed medications. To enhance our proposed design, we recommend a preparatory phase to identify a suitable comparator document, and a baseline phase to assess the current process.

Conclusion: We propose a more resource-efficient study design with a new endpoint. We plan to test its feasibility and evaluate whether it could enhance the efficacy of research on medication history taking in a pilot project.

关于用药史研究中新的研究设计和终点的建议。
简介入院时的用药史错误很常见,目前仍在研究提高用药史质量的有效策略。然而,有关用药史采集新方法的研究往往耗费大量时间和资源。评估用药史质量的黄金标准是将 "最佳用药史 "与原始用药史进行比较。然而,这种双重收集需要大量资源,会扰乱临床程序,并给患者带来额外负担。因此,需要探索更有效的研究设计。我们的目标是为未来的用药史研究开发一种设计,这种设计可以减少研究资源的使用,减轻患者和医务人员的负担:讨论:我们首先发现了既有用药史采集研究设计的不足之处,随后确定了新设计的要求。在之前的文献检索中,我们发现了一项采用替代终点的务实研究。我们以这项研究为起点,开发了一种新的研究设计来评估用药史采集方法的质量。在确定用药史的质量时,可以将患者已有的用药文件作为参照物,而不是进行第二次用药史采集。此外,我们还定义了一个新的主要终点,即每位患者的更新次数。更新是指新获得的用药史与参照物之间的差异。它们包括停药、开始用药和更改用药。为了改进我们提出的设计,我们建议设立一个准备阶段来确定合适的参照文件,并设立一个基线阶段来评估当前的流程:我们提出了一种资源利用效率更高的研究设计,并增加了一个新的终点。我们计划在一个试点项目中测试其可行性,并评估它是否能提高用药史研究的效率。
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
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信