Descriptive study of discharge medications in pediatric patients.
Pediatrics
discharge
dose rounding
medication reconciliation
medication safety
Journal
SAGE open medicine
ISSN: 2050-3121
Titre abrégé: SAGE Open Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101624744
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
01
2020
accepted:
27
04
2020
entrez:
18
6
2020
pubmed:
18
6
2020
medline:
18
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Limited studies have evaluated medications in children discharged from hospitals. Knowledge of the number of medications and dosage forms could provide a baseline to establish a medication discharge prescription program. To identify the median number of discharge prescriptions per patient. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of the dosage formulations and frequency, and comparisons of the prevalence of unrounded medication doses between service type (medical vs surgical) and physician provider level (trainees vs attendings). This retrospective study included children <18 years receiving >1 discharge prescription during 4 selected months over a 1-year time frame. Comparisons were made via Pearson's chi-square tests, Fisher's Exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric rank tests as appropriate with a priori A total of 852 patients were evaluated, with most (78.8%) on a medical service. The median (interquartile range) number of new medications at discharge was 2 (1-3), with the median total number of discharge medications of 3 (2-6). There was no difference in the net change of the median number of home medications stopped and new medications started between service types. The majority (72.2%) received >1 oral liquid medications. There was no difference in prescribing rates per service type and provider level. There was a difference in the number of unrounded doses between trainees versus attendings, 17.8% versus 9.5%, Patients were discharged on a median of three medications, and most received >1 oral liquid medications. These data can be used to target children who would benefit from medication discharge prescription programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Limited studies have evaluated medications in children discharged from hospitals. Knowledge of the number of medications and dosage forms could provide a baseline to establish a medication discharge prescription program.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To identify the median number of discharge prescriptions per patient. Secondary objectives included an evaluation of the dosage formulations and frequency, and comparisons of the prevalence of unrounded medication doses between service type (medical vs surgical) and physician provider level (trainees vs attendings).
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study included children <18 years receiving >1 discharge prescription during 4 selected months over a 1-year time frame. Comparisons were made via Pearson's chi-square tests, Fisher's Exact tests, and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric rank tests as appropriate with a priori
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 852 patients were evaluated, with most (78.8%) on a medical service. The median (interquartile range) number of new medications at discharge was 2 (1-3), with the median total number of discharge medications of 3 (2-6). There was no difference in the net change of the median number of home medications stopped and new medications started between service types. The majority (72.2%) received >1 oral liquid medications. There was no difference in prescribing rates per service type and provider level. There was a difference in the number of unrounded doses between trainees versus attendings, 17.8% versus 9.5%,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patients were discharged on a median of three medications, and most received >1 oral liquid medications. These data can be used to target children who would benefit from medication discharge prescription programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32547752
doi: 10.1177/2050312120927945
pii: 10.1177_2050312120927945
pmc: PMC7271562
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2050312120927945Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;147(6):761-7
pubmed: 16356427
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jul-Aug;23(4):320-328
pubmed: 30181724
Pediatrics. 2003 Aug;112(2):431-6
pubmed: 12897304
Arch Dis Child. 2000 Dec;83(6):492-7
pubmed: 11087283
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2010 Jan;49(1):49-53
pubmed: 19643978
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr;18(4):370-377
pubmed: 28198758
Ann Pharmacother. 2006 Oct;40(10):1766-76
pubmed: 16985096
Pediatrics. 2014 Aug;134(2):e354-61
pubmed: 25022742
JAMA. 2001 Apr 25;285(16):2114-20
pubmed: 11311101
Pediatrics. 2019 Feb;143(2):
pubmed: 30670581
Acad Pediatr. 2014 Sep-Oct;14(5):485-90
pubmed: 25169160
Drug Saf. 2004;27(9):661-70
pubmed: 15230647
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Jul-Aug;22(4):286-292
pubmed: 28943824
J Fam Pract. 1977 Aug;5(2):217-22
pubmed: 894226
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Mar-Apr;22(2):94-101
pubmed: 28469533
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Arch Dis Child. 2010 Apr;95(4):250-5
pubmed: 19948664
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Oct;13(4):226-32
pubmed: 23055881
Int J Pharm Pract. 2016 May;24(3):196-202
pubmed: 26670624
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016 Jul 1;73(13):981-90
pubmed: 27325879