The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that unintended medication discrepancies that represent errors are common at the time of hospital admission. These errors are particularly worthy of attention because they are not likely to be detected by computerized physician order entry systems. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients reporting the use of at least 4 regular prescription medications who were admitted to general internal medicine clinical teaching units. The primary outcome was unintended discrepancies (errors) between the physicians' admission medication orders and a comprehensive medication history obtained through interview. We also evaluated the potential seriousness of these discrepancies. All discrepancies were reviewed with the medical team to determine if they were intentional or unintentional. All unintended discrepancies were rated for their potential to cause patient harm. RESULTS: After screening 523 admissions, 151 patients were enrolled based on the inclusion criteria. Eighty-one patients (53.6%; 95% confidence interval, 45.7%-61.6%) had at least 1 unintended discrepancy. The most common error (46.4%) was omission of a regularly used medication. Most (61.4%) of the discrepancies were judged to have no potential to cause serious harm. However, 38.6% of the discrepancies had the potential to cause moderate to severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Medication errors at the time of hospital admission are common, and some have the potential to cause harm. Better methods of ensuring an accurate medication history at the time of hospital admission are needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
The Epidemiology of Prescribing Errors: The Potential Impact of Computerized Prescriber Order Entry
Bobb, A., Gleason, K., Husch, M., Feinglass, J., Yarnold, P. R., & Noskin, G. A. (2004) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.164.7.785 · Cited by 359
Cited by
The Care Transitions Intervention: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Coleman, E. A., Parry, C., Chalmers, S., & Min, S.-J. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822 · Cited by 1,937
Tam, V. C. (2005) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.045311 · Cited by 803
Self-citationAdverse drug reactions in special populations – the elderly
Davies, E. A., & O'Mahony, M. S. (2015) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.12596 · Cited by 604
Gleason, K. M., McDaniel, M. R., Feinglass, J., Baker, D. W., Lindquist, L., Liss, D., & Noskin, G. A. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1256-6 · Cited by 406
Mekonnen, A. B., McLachlan, A. J., & Brien, J.-A. E. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/jcpt.12364 · Cited by 309
Metadata
- Authors
- Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, R., Tam, V., Shadowitz, S., Juurlink, D. N., & Etchells, E. E.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2005-02-28
- Volume
- 165
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 424
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2171545313
- Cited by
- 957
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.165.4.424
- The paper
- Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, R., Tam, V., Shadowitz, S., Juurlink, D. N., & Etchells, E. E. (2005). Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.4.424
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.