Prevalence, clinical relevance and predictive factors of medication discrepancies revealed by medication reconciliation at hospital admission: prospective study in a Swiss internal medicine ward

Medication reconciliation by pharmacists for pre-admission patients improves patient safety

BACKGROUND

Medication errors related to the pre-admission medication history obtained on admission are a major cause of medication error during hospitalization. Medication reconciliation (MR) improves patient safety through the detection of inadvertent medication discrepancies at transitions of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of MR by pharmacists for patients prior to hospital admission on the incidence of medication errors in the early post-admission period.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients admitted to the orthopedic ward for surgery between April 2012 and March 2020 were included. Pharmacist-led MR for pre-admission patients was started on April 1, 2017. The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications that occurred during hospitalization were compared between the pre- and post-initiation of pharmacist-led MR (pre-initiation: April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, post-initiation: April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020).

RESULT

In the post-initiation group, 94.2% (1245/1321) of patients who were taking medications on admission had a pharmacist-led MR before admission. The proportion of patients whose physicians ordered the prescription of their pre-admission medications at the time before hospitalization to continue from admission was significantly higher in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (47.4% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001). The incidence of medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization was significantly lower in the post-initiation group than in the pre-initiation group (1.83% vs. 0.85%, p = 0.025). Pharmacist-led MR prior to admission was a significant protective factor against incidents related to pre-admission medication (odds ratio (OR), 0.3810; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.156-0.9320, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led MR for patients prior to hospital admission led to a reduction in medication errors related to pre-admission medications during hospitalization. Patient safety during hospitalization can be improved by accurate medication histories provided early by pharmacists.

The impact of clinical pharmacists' medication reconciliation upon patients' admission to reduce medication discrepancies in the emergency department: a prospective quasi-interventional study

BACKGROUND

The role of the clinical pharmacist in medication reconciliation is well established. Upon patients' admission, the reconciliation service mainly focuses on achieving an accurate and full drug history. This will achieve the best treatment plan and reduce medication discrepancies. Upon the recent implementation of clinical pharmacy services in the emergency department at Alexandria Main University Hospital, medication reconciliation was one of the most important duties that needed to be focused on. We hypothesized that clinical pharmacists are able to achieve patients' drug history lists with higher accuracy than emergency physicians.

RESULTS

A total number of 161 patients were included. Age was 58.59 ± (13.78) years, number of comorbidities was 2.39 ± (1.22) and number of home medications was 4.51 ± (2.72). Clinical pharmacists' fulfillment of patients' drug history was significantly more accurate than the emergency physicians (75.16% and 50.3% of the total number of revised patients' profiles respectively). The clinical pharmacists could put a written copy of the accurate patients' drug history list in only 50.93% of the revised patients' profiles. Five hundred eighty-five medication discrepancies were detected which represent an average of 3.63 discrepancies/medication sheet. Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) Toolkit for medication reconciliation and the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) index were used to categorize discrepancies. Categories A, B, and C represented (66.5%), while categories D, E, and F represented (33.5%) of the total discrepancies. There was a significant direct relationship between the total number of discrepancies and both the number of comorbidities and the number of drugs administered before hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The clinical pharmacists are the main members of the emergency health care team. One of their fundamental services is medication reconciliation. The establishment of a complete drug history list and physicians' discussion about the current treatment plan can obviously detect and reduce medication errors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04395443. Registered 16 May 2020.

The impact of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation and interprofessional ward rounds on drug-related problems at hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

During transitions of care, including hospital discharge, patients are at risk of drug-related problems (DRPs).

AIM

To investigate the impact of pharmacist-led services, specifically medication reconciliation at admission and/or interprofessional ward rounds on the number of DRPs at discharge.

METHOD

In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we analyzed routinely collected data of patients discharged from internal medicine wards of a regional Swiss hospital that filled their discharge prescriptions in the hospital's community pharmacy between June 2016 and May 2019. Patients receiving one of the two or both pharmacist-led services (Study groups: Best Care = both services; MedRec = medication reconciliation at admission; Ward Round = interprofessional ward round), were compared to patients receiving standard care (Standard Care group). Standard care included medication history taken by a physician and regular ward rounds (physicians and nurses). At discharge, pharmacists reviewed discharge prescriptions filled at the hospital's community pharmacy and documented all DRPs. Multivariable Poisson regression analyzed the independent effects of medication reconciliation and interprofessional ward rounds as single or combined service on the frequency of DRPs.

RESULTS

Overall, 4545 patients with 6072 hospital stays were included in the analysis (Best Care n = 72 hospital stays, MedRec n = 232, Ward Round n = 1262, and Standard Care n = 4506). In 1352 stays (22.3%) one or more DRPs were detected at hospital discharge. The combination of the two pharmacist-led services was associated with statistically significantly less DRPs compared to standard care (relative risk: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.16, 0.65). Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation alone showed a trend towards fewer DRPs (relative risk: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 1.03).

CONCLUSION

Our results support the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at admission in combination with interprofessional ward rounds to reduce the number of DRPs at hospital discharge.

[Medication Reconciliation During Admission to an Internal Medicine Department: A Pilot Study]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of medication reconciliation is to promote patient safety by reducing medication errors and adverse events due to medication discrepancies in transition of care. The aim of this pilot study of medication reconciliation at the time of hospital admission was to identify the necessary resources for its implementation in clinical practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pilot study with 100 patients admitted to an Internal Medicine department between October and December 2019, aged 18 and over, and chronically taking at least one medicine. The best possible medication history was obtained systematically, with subsequent identification, classification and resolution of the discrepancies.

RESULTS

The study sample, in general characterized by polypharmacy and by having multiple long-term conditions, presented a mean age of 77.04 ± 13.74 years, being 67.0% male. Overall, 791 discrepancies were identified. Intentional discrepancies were 95.7% and 50.9% of them were documented. The difficulties encountered were mainly related with the access and quality of therapeutic information and communication problems between different healthcare professionals. The key priority resources that were identified were related with the process, tools, and personnel categories.

CONCLUSION

The data revealed weaknesses in the clinical records available at the primary/hospital care interface. Optimization of data sources, standardization and informatization of the process, multidisciplinary approach and definition of priority groups were identified as opportunities for optimization.

Unintended medication discrepancies and associated factors upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards: identified through medication reconciliation

Background

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a widely accepted tool for the identification and resolution of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD).

Objective

This study aimed at assessing the magnitude and associated factors of UMD identified through medication reconciliation upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards.

Methods

Prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the internal medicine wards of Felege Hiwot and Tibebe Ghion comprehensive specialized hospitals in Bahir Dar city, Northwest Ethiopia, from May 01 to July 30, 2021. Data were collected by using a data abstraction format prepared based on standard MedRec tools and previous studies on medication discrepancy. Pharmacists-led MedRec was made by following the WHO High5s “retroactive medication reconciliation model”. SPSS® (IBM Corporation) version 25.0 was used to analyze the data with descriptive and inferential statistics. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with UMD. A statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05.

Results

Among 635 adult patients, 248 (39.1%) of them had at least one UMD. The most frequent types of UMDs were omission (41.75%) and wrong dose (21.9%). The majority (75.3%) of pharmacists’ interventions were accepted. Polypharmacy at admission (p-value < 0.001), age ≥ 65 (p-value = 0.001), a unit increase on the number of comorbidities (p-value = 0.008) and information sources used for MedRec (p-value < 0.001), and medium (p-value = 0.019) and low adherence (p-value < 0.001) were significantly associated with UMD.

Conclusion

The magnitude of UMD upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards was considerably high. Omission and the wrong dose of medication were common. Older age, polypharmacy, low and medium adherence, and an increase in the number of comorbidities and information sources used for MedRec are significantly associated with UMDs. Pharmacists' interventions were mostly acceptable. Thus, the implementation of pharmacists-led MedRec in the two hospitals is indispensable for patient safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08628-5.

Development and validation of a ready-to-use score to prioritise medication reconciliation at patient admission in an orthopaedic and trauma department

OBJECTIVE

Medication reconciliation (MR) is recognised as an important tool in preventing medication errors such as unintentional discrepancies (UDs). The aim of this study was to identify independent predictive factors of UDs during MR at patient admission to an orthopaedic and trauma department. The secondary objective was to build and validate a ready-to-use score to prioritise patients.

METHOD

A retrospective study was performed on 3.5 years of pharmacist-led MR in the orthopaedic and trauma department of a large university teaching hospital. Independent predictors of UD were identified by multivariable logistic regression. A priority score to identify patients at risk of at least one UD was constructed from the odds ratios of the risk factors, and validated in a separate cohort. Performance was assessed with sensitivity, specificity, C-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit.

RESULTS

In total, 888 patients were included and 387 UDs were identified, mainly drug omissions (65.1%). Five independent predictors of UD were identified: age >75 years (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.00; p<0.001), admission during school holidays (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.44; p=0.005), female gender (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.16; p<0.001), emergency hospitalisation (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.92; p<0.001), and ≥5 medications on the best possible medication history (BPMH) (OR 3.29, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.94; p<0.001). Based on these predictors, a priority score ranging from 0 to 10 was built and internally and externally validated (C statistic 0.72, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the high prevalence of UD in patients admitted to orthopaedic and trauma surgery departments. Five independent predictive factors of UD during MR were identified (female gender, emergency hospitalisation, hospitalisation during school holidays, age ≥75 years, and ≥5 medicines on the BPMH). The developed risk score will help to prioritise MR among patients at risk of medication error and is ready-to-use in other orthopaedic and trauma departments.

The value of incorporating patient-consulted medication reconciliation in influencing drug-related actions in the outpatient rheumatology setting

Background

Unintentional changes to patients’ medicine regimens and drug non-adherence are discovered by medication reconciliation. High numbers of outpatient visits and medication reconciliation being time-consuming, make it challenging to perform medication reconciliation for all outpatients. Therefore, we aimed to get insight into the proportion of outpatient visits in which information obtained with medication reconciliation led to additional drug-related actions.

Methods

In October and November 2018, we performed a cross-sectional observational study at the rheumatology outpatient clinic. Based on a standardized data collection form, outpatient visits were observed by a pharmacy technician trained to observe and report all drug-related actions made by the rheumatologist. Afterwards, the nine observed rheumatologists and an expert panel, consisting of two rheumatologists and two pharmacists, were individually asked which drug information reported on the drug list composed by medication reconciliation was required to perform the drug-related actions. The four members of the expert panel discussed until consensus was reached about their assessment of the required information. Subsequently, a researcher determined if the required information was available in digital sources: electronic medical record (electronic prescribing system plus physician’s medical notes) or Dutch Nationwide Medication Record System.

Results

Of the 114 selected patients, 83 (73%) patients were included. If both digital drug sources were available, patient’s input during medication reconciliation resulted in additional information to perform drug-related actions according to the rheumatologist in 0% of the visits and according to the expert panel in 14%. If there was only access to the electronic medical record, the proportions were 8 and 29%, respectively. Patient’s input was especially required for starting a new drug and discussing drug-related problems.

Conclusions

If rheumatologists only had access to the electronic medical record, in 1 out of 3 visits the patient provided additional information during medication reconciliation which was required to perform a drug-related action. When rheumatologists had access to two digital sources, patient’s additional input during medication reconciliation was at most 14%. As the added value of patient’s input was highest when rheumatologists prescribe a new drug and/or discuss a drug-related problem, it may be considered that rheumatologists only perform medication reconciliation during the visit when performing one of these actions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08391-7.

Usability and perceived usefulness of patient-centered medication reconciliation using a personalized health record: a multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Adoption of a personal health record (PHR) depends on its usability and perceived usefulness. Therefore, we aimed to assess the usability and perceived usefulness of an online PHR used for medication reconciliation and to assess the association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness at both the in- and outpatient clinics.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with patients with either an outpatient visit (rheumatology ward) or planned admission in the hospital (cardiology, neurology, internal medicine or pulmonary wards). All patients received an invitation to update their medication list in the PHR 2 weeks prior to their appointment. One month after the hospital visit, PHR-users were asked to rate usability (using the System Usability Scale (SUS)) and perceived usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. The usability and perceived usefulness were classified according to the adjective rating scale of Bangor et al. The usability was furthermore dichotomized in the categories: low (SUS between 0 and 51) and good (SUS 51-100) usability. Associations between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability and perceived usefulness were analysed.

RESULTS

255 of the 743 invited PHR-users completed the questionnaire. 78% inpatients and 83% outpatients indicated that usability of the PHR was good. There were no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the usability of the PHR. The majority of the patients (57% inpatients and 67% outpatients) classified perceived usefulness of the PHR as good, excellent, or best imaginable. Outpatients who also used the PHR for other drug related purposes reported a higher perceived usefulness (adjusted odds ratio 20.0; 95% confidence interval 2.36-170). Besides that, there was no significant association between patient-, clinical-, hospital-, and ICT-related factors and the perceived usefulness of the PHR.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the patients indicated that the PHR for medication reconciliation was useful and easy to use, but there is still room for improvement. To improve the intervention, further research should explore patients' barriers and facilitators of using a PHR for medication reconciliation.

Sources of medication omissions among hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized older adults have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and medication inaccuracies. Gathering the best possible medication history (BPMH) is necessary to accurately identify each medication for multimorbid older adults. The objective was to describe a multipronged approach to obtaining the BPMH for hospitalized older adults, quantify the medication discrepancies identified through these sources, and explore factors associated with these discrepancies.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of 372 hospitalized older adults (age ≥ 50) transitioning to post-acute care as part of a randomized controlled trial to reduce medication burden. We used four information sources to yield a BPMH. Medication discrepancies at hospital admission were categorized as omissions, additions, and dose discrepancies after comparing alternate sources with the electronic medical record (EMR). Multivariate regression analysis, including patient factors (e.g., age, prehospital medication count, number of pharmacies), was performed to identify factors associated with the total count of medication discrepancies.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of participants had at least one medication discrepancy and 46% used more than one pharmacy. The majority of discrepancies were omissions. Among the entire cohort, there was a median of two omitted medications per patient across two alternate sources-pharmacy refill history and bedside interview. Lower age, greater total number of prehospital medications, and admission from assisted living or skilled nursing facility were significantly associated with greater medication discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

A multipronged and consistent approach to obtain a BPMH during hospitalization for multimorbid older adults revealed medication discrepancies that should be addressed prior to hospital discharge to support safe prescribing practices.

Risk factors for clinically relevant deviations in patients' medication lists reported by patients in personal health records: a prospective cohort study in a hospital setting

Background Personal health records have the potential to identify medication discrepancies. Although they facilitate patient empowerment and broad implementation of medication reconciliation, more medication discrepancies are identified through medication reconciliation performed by healthcare professionals. Aim We aimed to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation in a patient’s medication list based on a personal health record (used by patients) compared to medication reconciliation performed by a healthcare professional. Method Three- to 14 days prior to a planned admission to the Cardiology-, Internal Medicine- or Neurology Departments, at Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, patients were invited to update their medication file in their personal health records. At admission, medication reconciliation was performed by a pharmacy technician. Deviations were determined as differences between these medication lists. Associations between patient-, setting-, and medication-related factors, and the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention class \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document}≥ E) were analysed. Results Of the 488 patients approached, 155 patients were included. Twenty-four clinically relevant deviations were observed. Younger patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.94; 95%CI:0.91–0.98), patients who used individual multi-dose packaging (aOR 14.87; 95%CI:2.02–110), and patients who used \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document}≥ 8 different medications, were at highest risk for the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (sensitivity 0.71; specificity 0.62; area under the curve 0.64 95%CI:0.52–0.76). Conclusion Medication reconciliation is the preferred method to identify medication discrepancies for patients with individual multi-dose packaging, and patients who used eight or more different medications.

Medication discrepancies among hospitalized patients with hypertension: assessment of prevalence and risk factors

Background

Medication errors remained among the top 10 leading causes of death worldwide. Furthermore, a high percentage of medication errors are classified as medication discrepancies. This study aimed to identify and quantify the different types of unintentional medication discrepancies among hospitalized hypertensive patients; it also explored the predictors of unintentional medication discrepancies among this cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study undertaken in a large teaching hospital. A convenience sample of adult patients, taking ≥4 regular medications, with a prior history of treated hypertension admitted to a medical or surgical ward were recruited. The best possible medication histories were obtained by hospital pharmacists using at least two information sources. These histories were compared to the admission medication orders to identify any possible unintentional discrepancies. These discrepancies were classified based on their severity. Finally, the different predictors affecting unintentional discrepancies occurrence were recognized.

Results

A high rate of unintentional medication discrepancies has been found, with approximately 46.7% of the patients had at least one unintentional discrepancy. Regression analysis showed that for every one year of increased age, the number of unintentional discrepancies per patient increased by 0.172 (P = 0.007), and for every additional medication taken prior to hospital admission, the number of discrepancies increased by 0.258 (P= 0.003). While for every additional medication at hospital admission, the number of discrepancies decreased by 0.288 (P < 0.001). Cardiovascular medications, such as diuretics and beta-blockers, were associated with the highest rates of unintentional discrepancies in our study. Medication omission was the most common type of the identified discrepancies, with approximately 46.1% of the identified discrepancies were related to omission. Regarding the clinical significance of the identified discrepancies, around two-third of them were of moderate to high significance (n= 124, 64.2%), which had the potential to cause moderate or severe worsening of the patient´s medical condition.

Conclusions

Unintentional medication discrepancies are highly prevalent among hypertensive patients. Medication omission was the most commonly encountered discrepancy type. Health institutions should implement appropriate and effective tools and strategies to reduce these medication discrepancies and enhance patient safety at different care transitions. Further studies are needed to assess whether such discrepancies might affect blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Unintentional Medication Discrepancies at Admission Among Elderly Inpatients with Chronic Medical Conditions in Vietnam: A Single-Centre Observational Study

Background

Elderly patients are at high risk of unintentional medication discrepancies during transition of care as they are more likely to have multiple comorbidities and chronic diseases that require multiple medications.

Objective

The aim of the study was to assess the frequency of unintentional medication discrepancies and identify the associated risk factors and potential clinical impact of them in elderly inpatients during hospital admission.

Patients and Methods

A prospective observational study was conducted from July to December 2018 in an 800-bed geriatric hospital in Hanoi, North Vietnam. Patients over 60 years of age, admitted to one of selected internal medicine wards, taking at least one chronic medication before admission, and staying at least 48 h were eligible for enrollment. Medication discrepancies of chronic medications before and after admission of each participant were identified by a pharmacist using a step-by-step protocol for the medication reconciliation process. The identified discrepancies were then classified as intentional or unintentional by an assessment group comprising a pharmacist and a physician. A logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors of medication discrepancies.

Results

Among 192 enrolled patients, 328 medication discrepancies were identified, with 87 (26.5%) identified as unintentional. Nearly a third of enrolled patients (32.3%) had at least one unintentional medication discrepancy. The most common unintentional medication discrepancy was omission of drugs (75.9% of 87 medication discrepancies). The logistic regression analysis revealed a positive association between the number of discrepancies at admission and the type of treatment wards.

Conclusions

Medication discrepancies are common at admission among Vietnamese elderly inpatients. This study highlights the importance of obtaining a comprehensive medication history at hospital admission and supports implementing a medication reconciliation program to reduce the negative impact of medication discrepancy, especially for the elderly population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40801-021-00274-3.

Comparison of a polypharmacy-based scale with Charlson comorbidity index to predict 6-month mortality in chronic complex patients after an ED visit

AIMS

The aim of this study was to test whether a newly designed polypharmacy-based scale would perform better than Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI) to predict outcomes in chronic complex adult patients after a reference Emergency Department (ED) visit.

METHODS

We built a polypharmacy-based scale with prespecified drug families. The primary outcome was 6-month mortality after the reference ED visit. Predefined secondary outcomes were need for hospital admission, 30-day readmission, and 30-day and 90-day mortality. We evaluated the ability of the CCI and the polypharmacy-based scale to independently predict 6-month mortality using logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and cumulative survival curves using Kaplan-Meier estimates and the log-rank test for three-category distributions of the polypharmacy-based scale and the CCI. Finally, we sought to replicate our results in two different external validation cohorts.

RESULTS

We included 201 patients (53.7% women, mean age = 81.4 years), 162 of whom were admitted to the hospital at the reference ED visit. In separate multivariable analyses accounting for gender, age and main diagnosis at discharge, both the polypharmacy-based scale (P < .001) and the CCI (P = .005) independently predicted 6-month mortality. The polypharmacy-based scale performed better in the ROC analyses (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.838, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.780-0.896) than the CCI (AUC = 0.628, 95% CI = 0.548-0.707). In the 6-month cumulative survival analysis, the polypharmacy-based scale showed statistical significance (P < .001), whereas the CCI did not (P = .484). We replicated our results in the validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our polypharmacy-based scale performed significantly better than the CCI to predict 6-month mortality in chronic complex patients after a reference ED visit.

Interdisciplinary Physician-Pharmacist Medication Review for Outpatients With Heart Failure: A Subanalysis of the PHARM-CHF Randomized Controlled Trial

Aims: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) require polypharmacy and are at increased risk for drug-related problems. Interdisciplinary physician-pharmacist medication review may improve drug treatment. Our goal was to analyze the changes from the physician-documented medication plan (MP) and patient-stated medication to an interdisciplinary consolidated MP (CMP).

Methods: This pre-specified subanalysis of the PHARM-CHF randomized controlled trial analyzed the medication review of CHF patients in the pharmacy care group. Community pharmacists compared the MP with the drug regimen stated by the patient and consulted with physicians on identified discrepancies and other medication-related problems resulting in a CMP.

Results: We analyzed 93 patients (mean 74.0 ± 6.6 years, 37.6% female), taking a median of ten (IQR 8–13) drugs. 80.6% of patients had at least one change from MP to CMP. We identified changes in 32.7% (303/926) of drugs. The most common correction was the addition of a drug not documented in the MP to the CMP (43.2%). We also determined frequent modifications in the dosing regimens (37.6%). The omission of a drug documented in the MP but left out of the CMP accounted for 19.1%. Comparing patient-stated medication to CMP, the current drug regimen of patients was changed in 22.4% of drugs.

Conclusion: The medication review resulted in changes of medication between MP and CMP in most of the patients and affected one-third of drugs. Structured physician-pharmacist interdisciplinary care is able to harmonize and optimize the drug treatment of CHF patients.

Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on 30-Day Returns to Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

According to international recommendations, hospitals should use medication reconciliation to prevent medication errors and improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of medication reconciliation at hospital admission on patient-centered health care outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This parallel group, open-label randomized controlled trial used centralized randomization to the intervention group (ie, individuals with medication reconciliation) or control group (ie, individuals with only standard, physician-acquired medication history). Outcome assessors and data analysts were blinded to group allocation. Participants included 1702 patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions at 2 regional secondary teaching hospitals in southern Switzerland. Study duration was 14.5 months, from November 1, 2018, to January 15, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 2018 through March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Medication reconciliation was performed at hospital admission in 3 steps: (1) the pharmacy assistant obtained the list of the patient's current medications (ie, the best possible medication history [BPMH]); (2) the clinical pharmacist led reconciliation of the BPMH with the list of home medications recorded at hospital admission by the attending physician (according to the hospital standard procedure); and (3) medication discrepancies were communicated to the attending physician, and, when necessary, medications prescribed at admission were adapted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite postdischarge health care use variable quantified as the proportion of patients with unplanned all-cause hospital visits (including visits to the emergency department and hospital readmissions) within 30 days after discharge from the hospital when medication reconciliation took place. A time-to-event analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 1702 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 86.0 [79.0-89.0] years; 720 [42.3%] men), 866 patients (50.9%) were allocated to the intervention group and 836 patients (49.1%) to the control group. The primary outcome occurred among 340 participants (39.3%) in the intervention group and 330 participants (39.5%) in the control group (P = .93). In time-to-event analyses at study closeout, unplanned all-cause hospital visits to the emergency department (log-rank P = .08) and unplanned all-cause hospital readmissions (log-rank P = .10) occurred similarly in the intervention and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that medication reconciliation at hospital admission has no impact on postdischarge health care outcomes among patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03654963.

Causes of discrepancies between medications listed in the national electronic prescribing system and patients' actual use of medications

Discrepancies between registered prescriptions and patients' actual use of medications are described as frequent and often resulting in adverse medication events. We aimed to assess the extent of and causes behind discrepancies between medications listed in the Danish national prescription system (Shared Medication Record) and patients' actual use of medications. We prospectively reconciled medication for 260 consecutively admitted polypharmacy patients (>50 years and ≥5 prescriptions) at two hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark. The type of discrepancies were determined and the cause of the discrepancies were evaluated as primarily caused by (1) the patient (i.e., intentional or unintentional non-adherence) or (2) the health care system (i.e., lack of appropriate update of the SMR by physicians in primary or secondary care). There was a median of 12 [IQR 9-15] medications listed and 3 [IQR 1-5] medication discrepancies per patient (total n = 925). The majority (53%) of discrepancies were caused by the health care system, 32% were caused by the patients, of which 70% were intentional non-adherence, and 15% had an indeterminable cause. In conclusion, discrepancies between medications listed in the Shared Medication Record and actual use of medications were frequent and were most often caused by clinicians not updating the prescription information.

Medication Without Harm: Developing optimal medication error reporting systems

Medication errors are amongst the most frequently occurring health care related incidents and have the potential to lead to life-threatening harm to patients. An incident reporting system is a traditional approach to improvement of patient safety and entails the retrieval of information from incident reports. This not only provides a better understanding of causes and contributing factors but also enables the collection of data on the severity of incidents, system deficiencies and the role of human factors in safety incidents. Medication error reporting systems are often developed as a part of larger incident reporting systems which deal with other types of incidents. Although a rise in the prevalence of medication errors has led to an increased demand for medication error reporting, little is known about characteristics and limitations of medication error reporting systems. The authors broach the subject of medication error reporting systems and propose a more robust and standardized approach.

Development and validation of a score to assess risk of medication errors detected during medication reconciliation process at admission in internal medicine unit: SCOREM study

BACKGROUND

Medication errors (ME) can be reduced through preventive strategies such as medication reconciliation. Such strategies are often limited by human resources and need targeting high risk patients.

AIMS

To develop a score to identify patients at risk of ME detected during medication reconciliation in a specific population from internal medicine unit.

METHODS

Prospective observational study conducted in an internal medicine unit of a French University Hospital from 2012 to 2016. Adult hospitalised patients were eligible for inclusion. Medication reconciliation was conducted by a pharmacist and consisted in comparing medication history with admission prescription to identify MEs. Risk factors of MEs were analysed using multivariate stepwise logistic regression model. A risk score was constructed using the split-sample approach. The split was done at random (using a fixed seed) to define a development data set (N = 1256) and a validation sample (N = 628). A regression coefficient-base scoring system was used adopting the beta-Sullivan approach (Sullivan's scoring).

RESULTS

Pharmacists detected 740 MEs in 368/1884 (19.5%) patients related to medication reconciliation. Female gender, number of treatments >7, admission from emergency department and during night or weekend were significantly associated with a higher risk of MEs. Risk score was constructed by attributing 1 or 2 points to these variables. Patients with a score ≥3 (OR [95% CI] 3.10 [1.15-8.37]) out of 5 (OR [95% CI] 8.11 [2.89-22.78]) were considered at high risk of MEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors identified in our study may help prioritising patients admitted in internal medicine units who may benefit the most from medication reconciliation (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03422484).

Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study

Background

Several countries have launched health information technology (HIT) systems for shared electronic medication plans. These systems enable patients and health care professionals to use and manage a common list of current medications across sectors and settings. Shared electronic medication plans have great potential to improve medication management and patient safety, but their integration into complex medication-related processes has proven difficult, and there is little scientific evidence to guide their implementation.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to summarize lessons learned from primary care professionals involved in a pioneering pilot project in Switzerland for the systemwide implementation of shared electronic medication plans. We collected experiences, assessed the influences of the local context, and analyzed underlying mechanisms influencing the implementation.

Methods

In this formative action research study, we followed 5 clusters of health care professionals during 6 months. The clusters represented rural and urban primary care settings. A total of 18 health care professionals (primary care physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) used the pilot version of a shared electronic medication plan on a secure web platform, the precursor of Switzerland’s electronic patient record infrastructure. We undertook 3 group interviews with each of the 5 clusters, analyzed the content longitudinally and across clusters, and summarized it into lessons learned.

Results

Participants considered medication plan management, digitalized or not, a core element of good clinical practice. Requirements for the successful implementation of a shared electronic medication plan were the integration into and simplification of clinical routines. Participants underlined the importance of an enabling setting with designated reference professionals and regular high-quality interactions with patients. Such a setting should foster trusting relationships and nurture a culture of safety and data privacy. For participants, the HIT was a necessary but insufficient building block toward better interprofessional communication, especially in transitions. Despite oral and written information, the availability of shared electronic medication plans did not generate spontaneous demand from patients or foster more engagement in their medication management. The variable settings illustrated the diversity of medication management and the need for local adaptations.

Conclusions

The results of our study present a unique and comprehensive description of the sociotechnical challenges of implementing shared electronic medication plans in primary care. The shared ownership among multiple stakeholders is a core challenge for implementers. No single stakeholder can build and maintain a safe, usable HIT system with up-to-date medication information. Buy-in from all involved health care professionals is necessary for consistent medication reconciliation along the entire care pathway. Implementers must balance the need to change clinical processes to achieve improvements with the need to integrate the shared electronic medication plan into existing routines to facilitate adoption. The lack of patient involvement warrants further study.

A comparison between medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician and the use of an online personal health record by patients for identifying medication discrepancies in patients' drug lists prior to elective admissions

AIM

Medication discrepancies (MDs), defined as unexplained differences among medication regimens, cause important public health problems with clinical and economic consequences. Medication reconciliation (MR) reduces the risk of MDs, but is time consuming and its success relies on the quality of different information sources. Online personalized health records (PHRs) may overcome these drawbacks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the level of agreement of identified MDs between traditional MR and an online PHR and the correctness of the identified MDs with a PHR.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted at the cardiology, neurology, internal medicine and pulmonary department of the Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. Two weeks prior to a planned admission all patients received an invitation from a PHR to update their medication file derived from the Nationwide Medication Record System (NMRS). At admission MR was performed with all by a pharmacy technician, who created the best possible medication history (BPMH) based on the NMRS data and an interview. MDs were determined as discrepancies between the available information from the NMRS and the input and alterations patients or pharmacy technician made. The number, correctness of patients' alterations, type and severity of identified MDs were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 488 patients approached, 155 (31.8 %) patients who both used the PHR and had received MR were included. The mean number of MDs identified with MR and PHR was 6.2 (SD 4.3) and 4.7 (SD 3.7), respectively. 82.1 % of the drug information noted by the patient in the PHR was correct compared to the BPMH and 98.6 % had no clinically relevant differences between the lists.

CONCLUSION

Patients who used an online PHR can relatively accurately record a list of their medication. Further research is required to explore the level of agreement and the correctness of a PHR in other (larger) hospital(departments).

Pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation reduces oral oncolytic medication errors during transitions of care

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to characterize medication errors associated with oral oncolytics as patients with cancer were admitted to the inpatient setting and identify contributing factors that lead to errors.

METHODS

A review of patients prescribed a cyclic oral oncolytic who were then admitted to the inpatient setting at a large, academic medical center from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2018, was conducted.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-five errors (43%) related to transcription of the oral oncolytic regimen from the outpatient to the inpatient setting were identified. Categorization of errors revealed that 46% were due to delays in treatment. Within this error subset, 75% of the delays were related to unavailability of nonformulary oral oncolytics. There was a significant decrease in error for patients who received medication reconciliation by a pharmacist (P = 0.032) after admission. There were no other significant differences observed among variables that may have led to increased error rates. Three percent of errors were reported to the internal medication safety reporting system at our institution.

CONCLUSION

The inability to fully confirm patients' home regimen via chart review poses great risk to accurate medication ordering upon hospital admission. Completion of medication reconciliations by pharmacists serves to decrease rates of errors that may occur during hospital admission in cancer patients undergoing treatment with oral oncolytic therapies.