***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objective Heart failure patients are regularly admitted to hospital and frequently use multiple medication . Besides intentional changes in pharmacotherapy , unintentional changes may occur during hospitalisation . The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a clinical pharmacist discharge service on medication discrepancies and prescription errors in patients with heart failure . Setting A general teaching hospital in Tilburg , the Netherl and s. Method An open r and omized intervention study was performed comparing an intervention group , with a  control group receiving regular care by doctors and nurses .  The clinical pharmacist discharge service consisted of review of discharge medication , communicating prescribing errors with the cardiologist , giving patients information , preparation of a written overview of the discharge medication and communication to both the community pharmacist and the general practitioner about this medication . Within 6 weeks after discharge all patients were routinely scheduled to visit the outpatient clinic and medication discrepancies were measured . Main outcome measure The primary endpoint was the frequency of prescription errors in the discharge medication and medication discrepancies after discharge combined . Results Forty-four patients were included in the control group and 41 in the intervention group . Sixty-eight percent of patients in the control group had at least one discrepancy or prescription error against 39 % in the intervention group ( RR 0.57 ( 95 % CI 0.37–0.88 ) ) . The percentage of medications with a discrepancy or prescription error in the control group was 14.6 % and in the intervention group it was 6.1 % ( RR 0.42 ( 95 % CI 0.27–0.66 ) ) . Conclusion This clinical pharmacist discharge service significantly reduces the risk of discrepancies and prescription errors in medication of patients with heart failure in the 1st month after discharge OBJECTIVES to investigate the effectiveness of a  pharmacy discharge plan  in elderly hospitalized patients . DESIGN r and omized controlled trial . SUBJECTS AND SETTING S we r and omized patients aged 75 years and older on four or more medicines who had been discharged from three acute general and one long-stay hospital to a pharmacy intervention or usual care . INTERVENTIONS the hospital pharmacist developed discharge plans which gave details of medication and support required by the patient . A copy was given to the patient and to all relevant professionals and carers . This was followed by a domiciliary assessment by a community pharmacist . In the control group , patients were discharged from hospital following st and ard procedures that included a discharge letter to the general practitioner listing current medications . OUTCOMES the primary outcome was re-admission to hospital within 6 months . Secondary outcomes included the number of deaths , attendance at hospital outpatient clinics and general practice and proportion of days in hospital over the follow-up period , together with patients ' general well-being , satisfaction with the service and knowledge of and adherence to prescribed medication . RESULTS we recruited 362 patients , of whom 181 were r and omized to each group . We collected hospital and general practice data on at least 91 and 72 % of patients respectively at each follow-up point and interviewed between 43 and 90 % of the study subjects . There were no significant differences between the groups in the proportion of patients re-admitted to hospital between baseline and 3 months or 3 and 6 months . There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes . CONCLUSIONS we found no evidence to suggest that the co-ordinated hospital and community pharmacy care discharge plans in elderly patients in this study influence outcomes BACKGROUND Hospitalization and subsequent discharge home often involve discontinuity of care , multiple changes in medication regimens , and inadequate patient education , which can lead to adverse drug events ( ADEs ) and avoidable health care utilization . Our objectives were to identify drug-related problems during and after hospitalization and to determine the effect of patient counseling and follow-up by pharmacists on preventable ADEs . METHODS We conducted a r and omized trial of 178 patients being discharged home from the general medicine service at a large teaching hospital . Patients in the intervention group received pharmacist counseling at discharge and a follow-up telephone call 3 to 5 days later . Interventions focused on clarifying medication regimens ; review ing indications , directions , and potential side effects of medications ; screening for barriers to adherence and early side effects ; and providing patient counseling and /or physician feedback when appropriate . The primary outcome was rate of preventable ADEs . RESULTS Pharmacists observed the following drug-related problems in the intervention group : unexplained discrepancies between patients ' preadmission medication regimens and discharge medication orders in 49 % of patients , unexplained discrepancies between discharge medication lists and postdischarge regimens in 29 % of patients , and medication nonadherence in 23 % . Comparing trial outcomes 30 days after discharge , preventable ADEs were detected in 11 % of patients in the control group and 1 % of patients in the intervention group ( P = .01 ) . No differences were found between groups in total ADEs or total health care utilization . CONCLUSIONS Pharmacist medication review , patient counseling , and telephone follow-up were associated with a lower rate of preventable ADEs 30 days after hospital discharge . Medication discrepancies before and after discharge were common targets of intervention Context Research on patient safety has focused on adverse events in hospitalized patients .  Adverse events following hospitalization have received little attention . Contribution Among 400 consecutive patients discharged from the general medical service of an academic hospital , 76 had adverse events during the 2 weeks following hospital discharge . Of the adverse events , the research ers categorized 23 as preventable , 24 as ameliorable , and the remainder as neither . Adverse drug events were the most frequent occurrence . Implication s Interventions to maximize patient safety should consider the vulnerable transition from hospital to home . The Editors Patient safety is a public concern that has received substantial attention , especially since the release of two reports from the U.S. Institute of Medicine . The first of these , To Err Is Human , review ed the literature on adverse events , or injuries result ing from medical care ( 1 ) . On the basis of data from two large population -based chart review studies , the report estimated that adverse events occur in 2.9 % ( 2 ) to 3.7 % ( 3 ) of hospitalizations . The first of these studies ( 2 ) found that although most injuries are minor , approximately 1 in 10 results in death . The research ers determined that approximately half of the adverse events were caused by errors ( 1 , 3 , 4 ) . The second report , Crossing the Quality Chasm , which proposes strategies for improving the health system , declared patient safety a fundamental component of care quality ( 5 ) . However , the estimated incidence of adverse events quoted in To Err Is Human may underestimate the overall safety problem , since injuries occurring after discharge were not included in the evaluation . Patients may be especially vulnerable to injuries during this period because they may still have functional impairments and because discontinuities may occur at the interface of acute and ambulatory care ( 6 ) . These discontinuities may be worsened by the current health care environment , in which patients are leaving the hospital quicker and sicker ( 7 ) and may receive care from hospitalists rather than their primary care physicians ( 8) . Despite these theoretical concerns , few studies are available to estimate the extent of the problem . Several studies have determined the risk for postdischarge wound infections in surgical patients ( 9 , 10 ) , but this is a specific type of safety problem and the risk can not be generalized . Other studies have used readmission rates to identify poor- quality hospital care ( 11 ) . However , this outcome is an insensitive and nonspecific marker of quality in general ( 11 ) and safety in particular . Information on the incidence and type of adverse events is vital for improving postdischarge safety . We wanted to determine the incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital to home . In addition , we wanted to identify the incidence of preventable and ameliorable adverse events , classify types of adverse events , and identify system improvements to reduce the incidence and severity of adverse events after discharge . Methods Overview To determine the rate of adverse events , we first created a case summary of every patient 's posthospital course by performing a medical record review and a telephone interview approximately 3 weeks after discharge . Using this information , we created event summaries , which two board-certified internists independently review ed to determine whether medical management caused an injury and , if so , whether it was preventable or ameliorable . The institutional review board at the study hospital approved the protocol . Definitions Adverse outcomes were any of the following patient experiences after discharge : new or worsening symptoms , unanticipated visits to health facilities for tests or treatments , or death . An adverse event was an injury result ing from medical management rather than the underlying disease . We evaluated all injuries result ing in symptoms after discharge , regardless of when the events occurred . Thus , we included adverse events that occurred in the hospital and after discharge as long as symptoms persisted until the patient went home . A preventable adverse event was an injury that could have been avoided , that is , an injury judged to probably be the result of an error or a system design flaw . An ameliorable adverse event was an injury whose severity could have been substantially reduced if different actions or procedures had been performed or followed . Patient Sample We used a prospect i ve cohort design to study adult medical patients at an 800-bed urban academic teaching hospital . Patients were included if they went home from the general medical service during a sequential 81-day period , had telephone service , and could complete a telephone interview in English . Patient surrogates were permitted to complete the interview if the patient could not . Telephone Interview A board-certified internist contacted patients by telephone within 2 to 5 weeks of discharge . If the patient was eligible and consented , he or she underwent a semi-structured interview over the telephone . If the patient was not available , we made up to 20 attempts to contact him or her at different times of the day and week . If the patient declined to participate or we were unable to contact him or her after 5 weeks , we rated the patient as a nonresponder . Responders underwent a telephone interview that had several components ( Appendix Figure ) . The principal component assessed the patient 's condition since discharge by using a full review of organ systems . If patients answered yes to any question , the interviewer asked them to elaborate about the symptom 's severity , timing in relation to hospitalization and treatments , and resolution . The survey also determined patients ' use of health services since discharge , including home care services , physician services , visits to laboratories , and readmissions to the hospital . Preparation of Case Summaries To create a case summary , the internist combined the information from the telephone interview with information obtained from a review of the patient 's electronic medical record . This computerized clinical record contains h and over notes from the hospitalization ; discharge summaries ; previous orders and written instructions ; emergency department and clinic notes ; operative and procedure notes ; and all laboratory results , including results of radiography , electrocardiography , and pathologic examination . If necessary , the paper chart was also review ed to clarify information that was in the discharge summary or h and over notes . If patients returned to the study hospital after discharge , we were able to vali date their history by review ing their records . However , for patients receiving care elsewhere , we had to rely on firsth and accounts . Preparation of Event Summaries The internist review ed every patient 's case summary for adverse outcomes . If any were found , an event summary that consisted of a detailed description of each outcome , including its onset , its severity , the health services used during its treatment , and its resolution , was created for each one . If there were no adverse outcomes , then the event summary consisted of the case summary . Determination of Adverse Events Two other board-certified internists independently rated each event summary by using st and ard techniques as described elsewhere ( 3 ) . Each event summary was evaluated separately . Review ers first rated on a scale of 1 to 6 their confidence that medical management caused an injury . If their rating was 5 or 6 , indicating that the injury was probably or definitely caused by management , the event was considered an adverse event . For adverse events , the internists used implicit criteria to determine their preventability and ameliorability . The two review ers ' assessment s were then compared for causality , preventability , and ameliorability . If there was disagreement , the two review ers discussed the case to attempt to come to consensus . If they did not agree , a third board-certified internist rated the event independently . Next , review ers rated injury severity , health services used , type of injury , and location . Injury severity was categorized as serious laboratory abnormality only , one day of symptoms , several days of symptoms , nonpermanent disability , permanent disability , or death . Differentiation between several days of symptoms and nonpermanent disability relied on evidence that symptoms interfered with patients ' activities of daily living . We categorized health services used as none , additional visit to a physician , additional visit for laboratory testing in addition to a physician visit , visit to an emergency department , readmission to the hospital , or death . We were able to determine whether health services were additional because during the interview we asked whether the health service was arranged before discharge or specifically for the particular symptom . We used a st and ard approach to classify the type of injury ( 2 , 3 ) , categorizing each as an adverse drug event , a procedure-related injury , a nosocomial infection , a fall , or other . We also classified the location of adverse events . Our primary objective was to evaluate adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital to home . We felt that most of these events would occur after the patient went home , but we recognized a priori that some adverse events could occur in the hospital but lead to morbidity after discharge because of the severity of the injury or because health providers did not recognize the problem at discharge . Examples of injuries occurring in the hospital but affecting patients after discharge include pressure ulcers , missed diagnoses , and erroneous drug prescriptions . If it was determined that the adverse event occurred in the hospital , we examined whether the injury was recognized before discharge and , if so , whether definitive management was instituted at that time . To develop strategies UNLABELLED The purpose of this paper 
    Output:
    
Statistically significant effects were mostly found in reducing hospital use ( for example , rehospitalizations ) , improvement of continuity of care ( for example , accurate discharge information ) , and improvement of patient status after discharge ( for example , satisfaction ) .
Many interventions have positive effects on  patient care .
However , given the complexity of interventions and outcome measures , the literature does not permit firm conclusions about which interventions have these effects .