Emma Bertilsson, Victoria Östman, Henrik Cam, Kristin Franzon, Ulrika Gillespie
{"title":"Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Quality and Completeness of Medication-Related Discharge Documentation","authors":"Emma Bertilsson, Victoria Östman, Henrik Cam, Kristin Franzon, Ulrika Gillespie","doi":"10.1111/jep.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Transitions of care are periods of heightened risk of medication management errors. Poor-quality discharge documentation has been linked to incorrect or suboptimal medication use and unplanned hospital visits. Despite regulations defining essential components of medication-related discharge documentation, deficiencies persist, highlighting the need for a method to assess whether current clinical practice meets these standards.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To conduct an initial validation of a newly developed instrument, the Complete Medication Documentation at Discharge – Measure (CMDD-M), assessing the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in a Swedish clinical setting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The instrument was developed and refined in multiple stages. In this study, two clinical pharmacists and one geriatrician independently applied the final instrument to discharge documentation from 50 patients. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was evaluated using linear and quadratic weighted Cohen's <i>κ</i> (<i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup>).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The average CMDD-M score, based on the consensus of the three raters, was 3.40 (SD ± 2.50) out of nine possible points across the patients' discharge documentation. The IRR between the pharmacists' individual assessments demonstrated almost perfect agreement, with <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup> values of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80–1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85–1.00), respectively. Moreover, the IRR between the pharmacists' consolidated score and the geriatrician's assessment displayed a moderate to strong agreement, with <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>linear</sup> and <i>κ</i><sub>W</sub><sup>quadratic</sup> values of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.48–0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64–0.97), respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The CMDD-M demonstrated robust IRR confirming its ability to consistently and accurately measure the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in an easy-to-use form. Further research is recommended to ensure validity, generalisability and association with clinically relevant outcomes supporting the instrument's potential usefulness for evaluating and improving clinical practice and research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale
Transitions of care are periods of heightened risk of medication management errors. Poor-quality discharge documentation has been linked to incorrect or suboptimal medication use and unplanned hospital visits. Despite regulations defining essential components of medication-related discharge documentation, deficiencies persist, highlighting the need for a method to assess whether current clinical practice meets these standards.
Aims
To conduct an initial validation of a newly developed instrument, the Complete Medication Documentation at Discharge – Measure (CMDD-M), assessing the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in a Swedish clinical setting.
Methods
The instrument was developed and refined in multiple stages. In this study, two clinical pharmacists and one geriatrician independently applied the final instrument to discharge documentation from 50 patients. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was evaluated using linear and quadratic weighted Cohen's κ (κWlinear and κWquadratic).
Results
The average CMDD-M score, based on the consensus of the three raters, was 3.40 (SD ± 2.50) out of nine possible points across the patients' discharge documentation. The IRR between the pharmacists' individual assessments demonstrated almost perfect agreement, with κWlinear and κWquadratic values of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80–1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.85–1.00), respectively. Moreover, the IRR between the pharmacists' consolidated score and the geriatrician's assessment displayed a moderate to strong agreement, with κWlinear and κWquadratic values of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.48–0.80) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64–0.97), respectively.
Conclusion
The CMDD-M demonstrated robust IRR confirming its ability to consistently and accurately measure the quality and completeness of medication-related discharge documentation in an easy-to-use form. Further research is recommended to ensure validity, generalisability and association with clinically relevant outcomes supporting the instrument's potential usefulness for evaluating and improving clinical practice and research.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.