ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Best possible medication history interview guide: a rapid scoping review.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse drug events are a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) is a systematic compilation of a patient's medications derived using at least two sources of information including a patient interview. We sought to update the BPMH interview guide developed by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Canada to reflect the evolving healthcare landscape.
objectivesWe conducted a rapid scoping review to develop questions and a standardised procedure for completing a BPMH, and to understand patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional preferences or perceptions regarding the BPMH interview.
methodsWe searched Medline, the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice Database, the Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews database, and grey literature. We included peer-reviewed quantitative literature (randomised/non-randomised controlled trials, observational studies), qualitative studies, systematic reviews, and grey literature (including guidelines, quality improvement initiatives, patient experiences, health technology assessments). Following pilot testing to ensure inter-rater reliability, articles were screened and data extracted in duplicate using the Covidence platform. INPLASY registration protocol INPLASY2024110033.
resultsOur search identified 5424 records, and after removing duplicates and screening, we extracted data from 95 articles. Identified studies provided additional questions and procedural steps for assessing adherence, use of non-prescription medications and substances (eg, alcohol, smoking, cannabis, recreational use), and integration of virtual care into the BPMH guide. Perceived facilitators and barriers to conducting a BPMH included clinical leadership support for trained healthcare professionals to perform a BPMH, virtual care, access to technology, and intact hearing for patients or interviewed caregivers.
conclusionsThis review identified additional questions and approaches for updating the ISMP Canada BPMH interview guide. Additional feedback from users of the existing interview guide, and patients and caregivers who have participated in a BPMH interview should be integrated through codesign into the new updated ISMP Canada BPMH guide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY2024110033.
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.