ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Identifying Medication Review Topics to Be Documented in a Structured Form in Electronic Health Record Systems: Delphi Consensus Survey.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor data transfer and interoperability between electronic health record (EHR) systems has been a challenge hindering availability and usability of patient information in clinical practice and evidence-based decision-making. To improve data transfer and interoperability, patient information should be documented in a structured format. This also applies to medication-related patient information and results of the interventions, such as medication reviews (MRs), to individually optimize medication regimens, especially in older adults.
objectiveThis study aimed to identify what information obtained from MRs should be documented in a structured form in EHRs at a national and organizational level.
methodsThe study was conducted as a 3-round Delphi consensus survey in 2020. The electronic survey was based on a comprehensive inventory of international and national MR procedures in various settings. Expert panelists (N=41) independently assessed which topics should be documented in a structured form in EHRs. The interprofessional panel (N=41) consisted of 12 physicians, 13 pharmacists, 10 nurses, and 6 information management professionals (participation rate 66%-76% in rounds 1-3; consensus limit set at 80%). The responses were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
resultsConsensus was reached on 97.3% (108/111) of predetermined topics to be documented in a structured form in EHRs. Of these, 39 concerned the MR process, 25 related to potentially drug-induced symptoms, 11 related to burden of risks for adverse drug effects, 12 related to laboratory tests and other test results, 12 related to medication adherence, and 9 related to the use of intoxicants. The patient's blood pressure (mean 4.85, SD 0.53; on a Likert scale 1-5), kidney function (mean 4.81, SD 0.56), and risk of bleeding (mean 4.81, SD 0.56) were ranked as the 3 most important topics to be documented in a structured form. The panel reached a consensus that the information obtained from MRs should be made available to all health care professionals in the national digital repository for patient data and to patients to some extent.
conclusionsThe interprofessional expert panel strongly agreed on the results of the MRs that should be documented in a structured form in EHRs and made available to both health professionals involved in care teams and patients themselves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.