Medication discrepancies in older patients admitted to non-geriatric wards: An exploratory study

Experience with the Implementation of Clinical Pharmacy Services and Processes in a University Hospital in Belgium

This article summarizes the experience with the development of clinical pharmacy services in the Ghent University Hospital in Belgium. Implementation of clinical pharmacy services in Belgian hospitals has not been evident because these activities were initially not structurally financed. The aim is to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the clinical pharmacy development process, and the milestones that enhanced the progress. Furthermore, the organisation of clinical pharmacy in the Ghent University Hospital is explained, including back- and front-office activities, seamless pharmaceutical care and medication safety improvement. Some working methods, procedures and tools are explained for different clinical pharmacy services. In particular, the clinical pharmacy projects for geriatric patients as well as the preparation of clinical pharmacy services for the accreditation process are explained. We also reflect on the organisation model and the future development of clinical pharmacy, taking into consideration facilitators and potential barriers.

The medication reconciliation process and classification of discrepancies: a systematic review

AIMS

Medication reconciliation is a part of the medication management process and facilitates improved patient safety during care transitions. The aims of the study were to evaluate how medication reconciliation has been conducted and how medication discrepancies have been classified.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Web of Science (WOS), in accordance with the PRISMA statement up to April 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the types of medication discrepancy found through the medication reconciliation process and contained a classification system for discrepancies. Data were extracted by one author based on a predefined table, and 10% of included studies were verified by two authors.

RESULTS

Ninety-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately one-third of included studies (n = 35, 36.8%) utilized a 'gold' standard medication list. The majority of studies (n = 57, 60%) used an empirical classification system and the number of classification terms ranged from 2 to 50 terms. Whilst we identified three taxonomies, only eight studies utilized these tools to categorize discrepancies, and 11.6% of included studies used different patient safety related terms rather than discrepancy to describe the disagreement between the medication lists.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that clear and consistent information on prevalence, types, causes and contributory factors of medication discrepancy are required to develop suitable strategies to reduce the risk of adverse consequences on patient safety. Therefore, to obtain that information, we need a well-designed taxonomy to be able to accurately measure, report and classify medication discrepancies in clinical practice.