METHODS: We conducted this systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Various databases were searched for CPGs and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. We also summarized the treatments plans of CPGs across continuum of care (diagnosis and assessment, treatment initiation, pharmacotherapy and psychosocial).
RESULTS: This review included 28 CPGs of varying qualities. CPGs from high-income countries and international organizations rated high for their methodological quality. Most CPGs scored high for the scope and purpose domain and scored low for applicability domain. Recommendations for the continuum of care for OUD varied across CPGs. Buprenorphine was recommended in most of the CPGs, followed by methadone. Recommendations for psychosocial interventions also varied, with cognitive behaviour therapies and counselling or education being the common recommendations in many CPGs WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We found most CPGs have scope and purpose and clarity of presentation. However, the methodological rigour and applicability scored low. CPGs need to frame health questions in a comprehensible manner and provide an update as evidence grows. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the incidence of unintentional discrepancies (medication errors), types of medication errors with its potential severity of patient harm and acceptance rate of pharmaceutical care interventions.
METHODS: A four-month cross-sectional study was conducted in the general medical wards of a tertiary hospital. All newly admitted patients with at least one prescription medication were recruited via purposive sampling. Medication history assessments were done by clinical pharmacists within 24 hours or as soon as possible after admission. Pharmacist-acquired medication histories were then compared with in-patient medication charts to detect discrepancies. Verification of the discrepancies, interventions, and assessment of the potential severity of patient harm resulting from medication errors were collaboratively carried out with the treating doctors.
RESULTS: There were 990 medication discrepancies detected among 390 patients recruited in this study. One hundred and thirty-five (13.6%) medication errors were detected in 93 (23.8%) patients (1.45 errors per patient). These were mostly contributed by medication omissions (79.3%), followed by dosing errors (9.6%). Among these errors, 88.2% were considered "significant" or "serious" but none were "life-threatening." Most (83%) of the pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by the doctors.
CONCLUSION: Medication history assessment by pharmacists proved vital in detecting medication errors, mostly medication omissions. Majority of the errors intervened by pharmacists were accepted by the doctors which prevented potential significant or serious patient harm.