Background The process of obtaining a complete medication history for patients admitted to the hospital from the ED at hospital admission, without discrepancies, is error prone and time consuming.
Objectives The goal of this study was the development of a clinical decision rule (CDR) with a high positive predictive value in detecting ED patients admitted to hospital at risk of at least one discrepancy during regular medication history acquisition, along with favourable feasibility considering time and budget constraints.
Methods Data were based on a previous prospective study conducted at the ED in Belgium, describing discrepancies in 3592 medication histories. Data were split into a training and a validation set. A model predicting the number of discrepancies was derived from the training set with negative binomial regression and was validated on the validation set. The performance of the model was assessed. Several CDRs were constructed and evaluated on positive predictive value and alert rate.
Results The following variables were retained in the prediction model: (1) age, (2) gender, (3) medical discipline for which the patient was admitted, (4) degree of physician training, (5) season of admission, (6) type of care before admission, number of (7) drugs, (8) high-risk drugs, (9) drugs acting on alimentary tract and metabolism, (10) antithrombotics, antihaemorrhagics and antianaemic preparations, (11) cardiovascular drugs, (12) drugs acting on musculoskeletal system and (13) drugs acting on the nervous system; all recorded by the ED physician on admission. The final CDR resulted in an alert rate of 29% with a positive predictive value of 74%.
Conclusion The final CDR allows identification of the majority of patients with a potential discrepancy within a feasible workload for the pharmacy staff. Our CDR is a first step towards a rule that could be incorporated into electronic medical records or a scoring system.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors SDW: conception and design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript. PVB, LW, IS: conception and design, interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript. PL: design, analysis, interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript. VF, SV: data acquisition, interpretation of data and critical revision of manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval No additional patients were included in this study. We developed a clinical decision rule using data from a previously published study for which we had approval of the Institutional Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.