Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods

Meyer-Massetti, Carla and Cheng, Christine M. and Schwappach, David L. B. and Paulsen, Lynn and Ide, Brigid and Meier, Christoph R. and Guglielmo, B. Joseph. (2011) Systematic review of medication safety assessment methods. American journal of health system pharmacy, Vol. 68, H. 3. pp. 227-240.

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A6001557

Downloads: Statistics Overview


The accuracy, efficiency, and efficacy of four commonly recommended medication safety assessment methodologies were systematically reviewed.; Medical literature databases were systematically searched for any comparative study conducted between January 2000 and October 2009 in which at least two of the four methodologies-incident report review, direct observation, chart review, and trigger tool-were compared with one another. Any study that compared two or more methodologies for quantitative accuracy (adequacy of the assessment of medication errors and adverse drug events) efficiency (effort and cost), and efficacy and that provided numerical data was included in the analysis.; Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Of these, 22 compared two of the methodologies, and 6 compared three methods. Direct observation identified the greatest number of reports of drug-related problems (DRPs), while incident report review identified the fewest. However, incident report review generally showed a higher specificity compared to the other methods and most effectively captured severe DRPs. In contrast, the sensitivity of incident report review was lower when compared with trigger tool. While trigger tool was the least labor-intensive of the four methodologies, incident report review appeared to be the least expensive, but only when linked with concomitant automated reporting systems and targeted follow-up.; All four medication safety assessment techniques-incident report review, chart review, direct observation, and trigger tool-have different strengths and weaknesses. Overlap between different methods in identifying DRPs is minimal. While trigger tool appeared to be the most effective and labor-efficient method, incident report review best identified high-severity DRPs.
Faculties and Departments:03 Faculty of Medicine > Bereich Medizinische Fächer (Klinik) > Klinische Pharmakologie > Klinische Pharmakologie (Krähenbühl)
03 Faculty of Medicine > Departement Klinische Forschung > Bereich Medizinische Fächer (Klinik) > Klinische Pharmakologie > Klinische Pharmakologie (Krähenbühl)
05 Faculty of Science > Departement Pharmazeutische Wissenschaften > Pharmazie > Clinical Pharmacy (Meier)
UniBasel Contributors:Meier, Christoph R.
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Related URLs:
Identification Number:
Last Modified:11 Oct 2012 15:31
Deposited On:11 Oct 2012 15:18

Repository Staff Only: item control page