Effect of medication reconciliation on patient reported potential adverse events after hospital discharge

Practice-enhancing publications about the medication-use process in 2021

PURPOSE

This article identifies, prioritizes, and summarizes published literature on the medication-use process (MUP) from calendar year 2021 that can impact health-system pharmacy daily practice. The MUP is the foundational system that provides the framework for safe medication utilization within the healthcare environment. The MUP is defined in this article as having the following components: prescribing/transcribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring, and monitoring/medication reconciliation. Articles evaluating at least one step of the MUP were assessed for their usefulness toward practice improvement.

SUMMARY

A PubMed search was conducted in January 2022 for articles published in calendar year 2021 using targeted Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords, and searches of the table of contents of selected pharmacy journals were conducted, providing a total of 7,178 articles. A thorough review identified 79 potentially practice-enhancing articles: 15 for prescribing/transcribing, 17 for dispensing, 4 for administration, 21 for monitoring, and 22 for monitoring/medication reconciliation. Ranking of the articles for importance by peers led to the selection of key articles from each category. The highest-ranked articles are briefly summarized, with a mention of their importance within health-system pharmacy. The other articles are listed for further review and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

It is important to routinely review the published literature and to incorporate significant findings into daily practice. This article assists in identifying and summarizing the most impactful publications. Health-system pharmacists have an active role in improving the MUP in their institution, and awareness of the significant published studies can assist in changing practice at the institutional level.

"There Is Method to This Madness" A Qualitative Investigation of Home Medication Management by Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

This paper explores (1) the systems and processes older adults use to manage medications at home, and (2) the well-being goals of personal interest that motivate them.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted in the homes of 12 older adults in a small city in the Midwest United States. Interviews were analyzed using inductive template analysis.

RESULTS

The average age of older adults in this study was 74.2 years (SD = 10.5), 66.7% were women. The most prominent home medication management tools used were pill boxes, containers and vials, and medication lists. Routines were often aligned with activities of daily living such as teeth brushing and eating. Their medication management work occurred in contexts of other household members and budget constraints. Routines and practices were sometimes idiosyncratic adaptations and supported goals of maintaining control and decreasing vulnerability.

CONCLUSION

In developing routines for home medication management, older adults developed systems and deliberate processes to make sense of their medication experiences in the context of their home environment and based on available resources.

Implementation of a pharmacist‐led transitional pharmaceutical care programme: Process evaluation of Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH)

What is known and objective

The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post‐discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non‐significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH.

Methods

A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach‐back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post‐discharge home‐visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi‐structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results and Discussion

Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach‐back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post‐discharge home‐visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation.

What is new and Conclusion

Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non‐significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work‐flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment.