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

Using personal health records for medication continuity during transition of care: An observational study

Background: National Personal Health Records (PHRs) have been proposed to improve the transfer of medication-related information during transition of care. Objective: To evaluate the concordance between the medications captured in the Australian national PHR, My Health Record (MyHR), and the pharmacist obtained best possible medication history (BPMH) for patients upon hospital admission. Method: This prospective observational study used a convenience sample of hospital patients. For newly admitted patients, the investigating pharmacist obtained a BPMH and then compared it to the medication list captured in MyHR. Upon comparison, the medications were categorised into either complete match, partial match or mismatch. Medications with a complete or partial match were grouped together. Medications with deviations were then assessed for risk based on their potential consequence, and reported descriptively. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the factors associated with a drug being mismatched. Results: A total of 82 patients were recruited, with a cumulative total of 1,207 medications documented. Of the 1,207 medications, 714 (59.2%) medications were documented as a complete/partial match. The remaining 493 (40.8%) medications were mismatched. Of the 493 mismatched medications, 442 (89.7%) were deemed low-risk deviations and 51 (10.3%) were deemed high-risk. A medication was more likely to be mismatched, rather than completely/partially matched, if it was a regular non-prescription medication, or "when-required" prescription medication, or "when required" non-prescription medication, or if it was administered parenterally. Conclusion: National PHRs may be a secondary source to either confirm a patient's medication history or be used as a starting point for a BPMH.

Obtaining medication histories via telepharmacy: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation is an effective strategy to reduce medication errors upon hospital admission. The process involves obtaining a best possible medication history (BPMH), which can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepharmacy was used to reduce the risk of viral transmission. Telepharmacy is the remote provision of pharmacy-led clinical services, such as obtaining BPMHs, using telecommunications. However, the accuracy of telephone-obtained BPMHs has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the telephone-obtained BPMH compared to an in-person obtained BPMH.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study took place in a large tertiary hospital. Recruited patients or carers had their BPMH obtained by a pharmacist over the telephone. The same patients or carers then had their BPMH conducted in-person to identify any deviations between the telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. All telephone-obtained BPMHs were timed with a stopwatch. Any deviations were categorised according to their potential consequence. An accurate BPMH was defined as having no deviations. Descriptive statistics were used to report all quantitative variables. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for patients and medications for having medication deviations.

RESULTS

In total, 116 patients were recruited to receive both a telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. Of these, 91 patients (78%) had an accurate BPMH with no deviations. Of the 1104 medications documented across all the BPMHs, 1064 (96%) had no deviation. Of the 40 (4%) medication deviations, 38 were deemed low-risk (3%) and 2 high-risk (1%). A patient was more likely to have a deviation if they are taking more medications (aOR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22; p < 0.05). A medication was more likely to have a deviation if it was regular non-prescription medication (aOR: 4.82; 95% CI: 2.14-10.82; p < 0.001) or 'when required' non-prescription medication (aOR: 3.12; 95% CI: 1.20-8.11; p = 0.02) or a topical medication (aOR: 12.53; 95% CI: 4.34-42.17; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Telepharmacy represents a reliable and time-efficient alternative to in-person BPMHs.

Accuracy of best possible medication histories by pharmacy students: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation is an effective strategy to prevent medication errors upon hospital admission and requires obtaining a patient's best possible mediation history (BPMH). However, obtaining a BPMH is time-consuming and pharmacy students may assist pharmacists in this task.

AIM

To evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the pharmacy student-obtained BPMH compared to the pharmacist-obtained BPMH.

METHOD

Twelve final-year pharmacy students were trained to obtain BPMHs upon admission at 2 tertiary hospitals and worked in pairs. Each student pair completed one 8-h shift each week for 8 weeks. Students obtained BPMHs for patients taking 5 or more medications. A pharmacist then independently obtained and checked the student BPMH from the same patient for accuracy. Deviations were determined between student-obtained and pharmacist-obtained BMPH. An accurate BPMH was defined as only having no-or-low risk medication deviations.

RESULTS

The pharmacy students took BPMHs for 91 patients. Of these, 65 patients (71.4%) had an accurate BPMH. Of the 1170 medications included in patients' BPMH, 1118 (95.6%) were deemed accurate. For the student-obtained BPMHs, they were more likely to be accurate for patients who were older (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001), had fewer medications (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.97; p = 0.02), and if students used two source types (administration and supplier) to obtain the BPMH (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.09-2.50; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

It is suitable for final-year pharmacy students to be incorporated into the BPMHs process and for their BPMHs to be verified for accuracy by a pharmacist.

Barriers and facilitators for the usage of a personal health record for medication reconciliation: A qualitative study among patients

AIMS

Personal health records (PHRs) are more often used for medication reconciliation (MR). However, patients' adoption rate is low. We aimed to provide insight into patients' barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR prior to an in- or outpatient visit.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted among PHR users and non-users who had a planned visit at the outpatient rheumatology department or the inpatient cardiology or neurology department. About 1 week after the hospital visit, patients were interviewed about barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR using a semi-structured interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework. Afterwards, data were analysed following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ten PHR users and non-users were interviewed. Barriers and facilitators were classified in four domains: patient, application, process and context. We identified 14 barriers including limited (health) literacy and/or computer skills, practical and technical issues, ambiguity about who is responsible (the patient or the healthcare provider) and lack of data exchange and connectivity between applications. Besides that, ten facilitators were identified including being place and time independent, improve usability, target patients who benefit most and/or have sufficient skills, and integration of different applications.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and facilitators identified at the patient, application, process and context level, need to be addressed to effectively develop and implement PHRs for MR.

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.

The Perceived Effectiveness of Secure Messaging for Medication Reconciliation During Transitions of Care: Semistructured Interviews With Patients

Background

Medication discrepancies can lead to adverse drug events and patient harm. Medication reconciliation is a process intended to reduce medication discrepancies. We developed a Secure Messaging for Medication Reconciliation Tool (SMMRT), integrated into a web-based patient portal, to identify and reconcile medication discrepancies during transitions from hospital to home.

Objective

We aimed to characterize patients’ perceptions of the ease of use and effectiveness of SMMRT.

Methods

We recruited 20 participants for semistructured interviews from a sample of patients who had participated in a randomized controlled trial of SMMRT. Interview transcripts were transcribed and then qualitatively analyzed to identify emergent themes.

Results

Although most patients found SMMRT easy to view at home, many patients struggled to return SMMRT through secure messaging to clinicians due to technology-related barriers. Patients who did use SMMRT indicated that it was time-saving and liked that they could review it at their own pace and in the comfort of their own home. Patients reported SMMRT was effective at clarifying issues related to medication directions or dosages and that SMMRT helped remove medications erroneously listed as active in the patient’s electronic health record.

Conclusions

Patients viewed SMMRT utilization as a positive experience and endorsed future use of the tool. Veterans reported SMMRT is an effective tool to aid patients with medication reconciliation. Adoption of SMMRT into regular clinical practice could reduce medication discrepancies while increasing accessibility for patients to help manage their medications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02482025; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02482025

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.

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.

Frequent and diverse use of electronic health records in the United States: A trend analysis of national surveys

Objective

Considering the increasing integration of electronic health records (EHRs) into medical practice by healthcare organizations, it is especially pertinent to understand its actual usage by the general public in recent years. This study aims to explore factors associated with the frequency and diversity of EHR usage in the United States over time.

Methods

We analyzed three iterations (2017, 2018, and 2019) of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). HINTS is a national cross-sectional survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute to document attitudes and perceptions about health information access and use among American adults.

Results

Both frequency and diversity of EHR usage have slightly increased across the years. However, its overall usage still remained low. Three technology-related enablers (access to digital devices, access to the Internet, and perceived usefulness of EHRs) were positively related to EHR usage in all three iterations. In addition, perceived health status was a constant and negative predictor of EHR usage over years. Doctor–patient communication was positively associated with the frequency of EHR usage in two survey waves.

Conclusions

More initiatives to increase EHR usage in the United States are needed. We advocate for providing affordable Internet access and smartphone to underserved populations; in medical encounters, doctors should have more patient-centered communication, introduce the benefits of EHRs to patients, and promote EHR adoption in terms of frequency and diversity.

The Effect of Medication Reconciliation via a Patient Portal on Medication Discrepancies: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation has become standard care to prevent medication transfer errors. However, this process is time-consuming but could be more efficient when patients are engaged in medication reconciliation via a patient portal.

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether medication reconciliation by the patient via a patient portal is noninferior to medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician.

DESIGN (INCLUDING INTERVENTION)

Open randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Patients were randomized between medication reconciliation via a patient portal (intervention) or medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician at the preoperative screening (usual care).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients scheduled for elective surgery using at least 1 chronic medication were included.

MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the number of medication discrepancies compared to the electronic nationwide medication record system (NMRS). For the secondary endpoint, time investment of the pharmacy technician for the medication reconciliation interview and patient satisfaction were studied. Noninferiority was analyzed with an independent t test, and the margin was set at 20%.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. The patient portal group contained 241 patients; the usual care group contained 258 patients. The number of medication discrepancies was 2.6 ± 2.5 in the patient portal group and 2.8 ± 2.7 in the usual care group. This was not statistically different and within the predefined noninferiority margin. Patients were satisfied with the use of the patient portal tool. Also, the use of the portal can save on average 6.8 minutes per patient compared with usual care.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Medication reconciliation using a patient portal is noninferior to medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician with respect to medication discrepancies, and saves time in the medication reconciliation process. Future studies should focus on identifying patient characteristics for successful implementation of patient portal medication reconciliation.