4.2 Article

Discrepancies between in-home interviews and electronic medical records on regularly used drugs among home care clients

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 100-105

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3909

Keywords

older people; home care; drugs; discrepancies; electronic medical record; pharmacoepidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To compare discrepancies between in-home interviews and electronic medical records (EMRs) on regularly used prescription drugs among older home care clients. Methods The participants were home care clients aged 75 years or older living in three Finnish municipalities. In-home interview data on regular prescription drug use from 276 home care clients were compared with EMRs. Agreement between the in-home interview data and EMRs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Results A majority (83%, n = 229) of the home care clients had discrepancies between in-home interview data and EMRs, and 40% had discrepancies that could clinically compromise their treatment. Living with a spouse or other family member, use of private health care services, diagnosed asthma/COPD or excessive polypharmacy was associated with having discrepancies. Discrepancies were more common among clients with better functioning and ability to self-manage drug use. Agreement between in-home interview data and EMRs was very good or good for other drug groups, but moderate for opioids, paracetamol, benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related drugs and lubricant eye drops, and poor for selective beta-2-adrenoceptor agonists. The most common clinically important discrepancies were psychotropics, opioids and agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system and beta-blocking agents. Conclusions Eight out of ten home care clients had discrepancies between in-home interview data and EMRs. Of these discrepancies, 40% were clinically important. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available