Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 2;23(5):272–277. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2015-000748

Table 3.

Compliance with medication details at patient level, treating omission as non-compliance

TEAMS Symphony Total 95% CI χ2 p Value df OR (95% CI)*
Patient level, including omission n/N (%) n/N (%) n/N (%)
Generic drug name used† 73/164 (44.5) 3/25 (12) 76/189 (40.2) (33.9 to 47.1) 9.538 0.001 1 0.17 (0.05 to 0.59)
Dose indicated† 76/164 (46.3) 3/25 (12) 79/189 (41.8) (34.9 to 48.7) 10.516 0.001 1 0.16 (0.05 to 0.55)
Frequency of administration indicated† 76/164 (46.3) 2/25 (8) 78/189 (41.3) (34.4 to 48.7) 13.157 0.000 1 0.10 (0.02 to 0.44)
Duration of therapy† 64/164 (39) 3/25 (12) 67/189 (35.4) (28.6 to 42.3) 6.923 0.006 1 0.21 (0.06 to 0.74)
Changes on discharge summary 23/114 (20.2) 0/16 (0) 23/130 (17.7) (10.8 to 24.6) 0.074‡ 1 0.85 (0.79 to 0.92)
Reason for change to preadmission medication 24/47 (51.1) 1/1 (100) 25/48 (52.1) (37.5 to 64.6)
Indication(s) for medication newly started† 54/129 (41.9) 12/16 (75) 66/145 (45.5) (37.2 to 53.8) 6.304 0.012 1 4.17 (1.28 to 13.62)
Overall compliance with all medication criteria 33/165 (20) 3/25 (12) 36/190 (18.9) (13.7 to 25.2) 0.432 1 0.55 (0.15 to 1.93)

*Likelihood of TEAMS compliance relative to Symphony compliance.

†Statistically significant.

‡Fisher’s exact reported as >20% of expected frequencies were <5.

TEAMS, Tallaght Education and Audit Management System.