Frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at admission to hospital: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Over a quarter of hospital prescribing errors are attributable to incomplete medication histories being obtained at the time of admission. We undertook a systematic review of studies describing the frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at hospital admission. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for articles published from 1966 through April 2005 and bibliographies of papers subsequently retrieved from the search. We reviewed all published studies with quantitative results that compared prescription medication histories obtained by physicians at the time of hospital admission with comprehensive medication histories. Three reviewers independently abstracted data on methodologic features and results. RESULTS: We identified 22 studies involving a total of 3755 patients (range 33-1053, median 104). Errors in prescription medication histories occurred in up to 67% of cases: 10%- 61% had at least 1 omission error (deletion of a drug used before admission), and 13%- 22% had at least 1 commission error (addition of a drug not used before admission); 60%- 67% had at least 1 omission or commission error. Only 5 studies (n = 545 patients) explicitly distinguished between unintentional discrepancies and intentional therapeutic changes through discussions with ordering physicians. These studies found that 27%- 54% of patients had at least 1 medication history error and that 19%- 75% of the discrepancies were unintentional. In 6 of the studies (n = 588 patients), the investigators estimated that 11%-59% of the medication history errors were clinically important. INTERPRETATION: Medication history errors at the time of hospital admission are common and potentially clinically important. Improved physician training, accessible community pharmacy databases and closer teamwork between patients, physicians and pharmacists could reduce the frequency of these errors.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A systematic review of 65 studies involving 3,755 patients concluded that errors in prescription medication histories occurred in up to 67% of cases.
“A systematic review of 65 studies involving 3,755 patients concluded that errors in prescription medication histories occurred in up to 67% of cases.”
From Application of zero trust model in preventing medical errors (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
The Results section says the review included 22 studies enrolling 3,755 patients, not 65 studies. The Frequency of errors section reports that 10%–67% of patients had at least one prescription medication history error, supporting the stated upper figure. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 803
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Cohen J, Wilson C, Ward F. Improve drug history taking. Pharmacy in Prac- tice 1998;1:13-6.
- Drewett NM. Stop regular medicine errors. Pharmacy in Practice 1998;8:193-6.
- Massey C. An evaluation of the benefits of pharmacist acquired drug histories. Proc Guild Hosp Pharm 1987;25:80-1.
- Walchle RD, McKercher PL, Cooper JW. Physician-, nurse-, and pharma- cist-conducted patient drugs histories. Contemp Pharm Pract 1980;3:75-8.
- Authors
- Tam, V. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Tam, V. C.
- ORCID
- Tam, V. C.
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Impact Inc.
- Published
- 2005-08-30
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 510-515
- ISSN
- 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
- 1488-2329
- PMC
- PMC1188190
- OpenAlex
- W2133085886
- Cited by
- 803
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 51
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- hospitalization, drug history, omission errors, commission errors, prescribing errors, physician training, pharmacist collaboration, medication reconciliation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Medical History Taking, Medication Errors, Patient Admission, Pharmacists, Pharmacy Service, Hospital, Physicians, Drug Prescriptions, Safety, Incidence
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