Evaluation of a patient-completed versus health professional-conducted medication history.

L M Montpetit, M T Roy
{"title":"Evaluation of a patient-completed versus health professional-conducted medication history.","authors":"L M Montpetit,&nbsp;M T Roy","doi":"10.1177/106002808802201206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medication histories are considered an essential component of clinical pharmacy practice, but they are time-consuming. A study was undertaken to determine how reliable and time-saving a patient-completed medication history form alone could prove to be compared with the amount of information recorded in the medical chart and with a pharmacist-patient form review. Within 24 hours of admission, the patient was given the form to fill out. The pharmacist returned 24 hours later and reviewed the form with the patient. Of 13 questions asked, the form was significantly superior in obtaining information to the chart in 11 and to the review in 6 (p less than 0.05 per question). The review rated better than the chart on all questions (p less than 0.05 per question). The amount of time required to hand out and review the form (mean 7.35 min) was not significantly different from the time required of a pharmacist to conduct a conventional medication history, according to the Canada Workload Measurement Study statistics. It can therefore be concluded that the patient-completed form is not an effective or time-saving method of conducting a medication history.</p>","PeriodicalId":77709,"journal":{"name":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","volume":"22 12","pages":"964-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/106002808802201206","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug intelligence & clinical pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808802201206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Medication histories are considered an essential component of clinical pharmacy practice, but they are time-consuming. A study was undertaken to determine how reliable and time-saving a patient-completed medication history form alone could prove to be compared with the amount of information recorded in the medical chart and with a pharmacist-patient form review. Within 24 hours of admission, the patient was given the form to fill out. The pharmacist returned 24 hours later and reviewed the form with the patient. Of 13 questions asked, the form was significantly superior in obtaining information to the chart in 11 and to the review in 6 (p less than 0.05 per question). The review rated better than the chart on all questions (p less than 0.05 per question). The amount of time required to hand out and review the form (mean 7.35 min) was not significantly different from the time required of a pharmacist to conduct a conventional medication history, according to the Canada Workload Measurement Study statistics. It can therefore be concluded that the patient-completed form is not an effective or time-saving method of conducting a medication history.

评估患者填写的与卫生专业人员指导的用药史。
用药史被认为是临床药学实践的重要组成部分,但它们是耗时的。进行了一项研究,以确定与病历中记录的信息量和药剂师-患者表格审查相比,患者填写的用药史表的可靠性和节省时间的程度。在入院的24小时内,病人被要求填写表格。药剂师24小时后回来和病人一起检查了表格。在13个问题中,表格在获取信息方面明显优于11个图表和6个综述(每个问题p < 0.05)。该评价在所有问题上都优于图表(每个问题p小于0.05)。根据加拿大工作量测量研究统计数据,分发和审查表格所需的时间(平均7.35分钟)与药剂师进行常规用药史所需的时间没有显著差异。因此,可以得出结论,患者填写的表格不是进行用药史的有效或节省时间的方法。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信