Skip to main content

Table 3 Clinical significance of unintentional medication discrepancies

From: Impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author, year Tool for clinical significance evaluation Clinical judgment determined by Results
Boockvar 2010 [37] NCC MERP [45] Discussion between 2 physicians or 1 physician and 1 pharmacist 46 % of prescribing discrepancies causing ADEs were asymptomatic, 52 % were associated with symptoms and 3 % caused a prolonged or an additional hospital stay.
No prescribing discrepancies caused permanent disability or death.
Gimeneze-Manzorro 2015 [43] NCC MERP [45] Consensus between the pharmacist and the medical coordinator Grade C, 79.2 %
Grade D, 13.6 %
Grade E, 7.1 %
Gimeneze-Manzorro 2011 [42] NCC MERP [45] Pharmacist discuss with medical coordinators Most errors were grade C in severity in both phases.
Severe errors: Pre-implementation, 96/1,823 (5.3 %); Post-implementation, 48/1,958 (2.4 %)
Kramer 2007 [38] Nickerson et al. 2005 [48] NR Pre-implementation: 3 MEs (2 category B errors, 1 category C error)
Post-implementation: 4 MEs (3 category B errors, 1 category C error)
Zoni 2012 [44] NCC MERP [45] Consensus between the pharmacist and the medical coordinator Most of the unintended discrepancies would cause no harm to the patient.
In the pre-implementation, there were 2 patients where either patient monitoring would be required or the patient would suffer temporary damage.
  1. MEs medication errors, NCC MERP National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention, NR not reported