A prospective assessment of the Medicaid Web portal for admission medication reconciliation at a community hospital in Montana

Approaches to medication history taking in different hospital settings: A scoping review

PURPOSE

A comprehensive medication history can contribute to safe therapy. Many approaches aiming to improve medication history taking require significant human resources. To design an efficient process that delivers high-quality medication histories, the individual requirements and resources of a given setting need to be considered. We aimed to provide an overview of existing approaches to medication history taking and their performance in different settings to potentially support the selection of an appropriate procedure.

METHODS

We searched 3 literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) for publications on approaches to medication history taking and analyzed them with regard to their key components as well as the setting, patient population, assessed outcomes, and efficacy.

RESULTS

In total, 65 publications were included and analyzed. The majority of the reported approaches relied on involvement of dedicated staff (n = 43), followed by process-oriented interventions (eg, checklists; n = 15) and information technology (IT)-guided interventions (n = 11). A mean (SD) of 6 (2.9) outcomes were described in each study. Medication discrepancies were reported in 89% of all studies, yet about 75 different descriptions of this outcome were used, making it difficult to compare study results. Only 11 studies applied a sample size calculation and statistical tests. Of those, 10 reported a positive effect of their respective intervention on the quality of medication histories.

CONCLUSION

Most approaches focused on pharmacy staff, which are associated with considerable cost and resources. Therefore, IT-based approaches and patient engagement should be investigated as cost-effective alternatives and tested for superiority in the same setting. Reporting guidelines and standardized methodology are needed to improve the comparability of such studies.

Med rec double check: Inpatient psychiatry medication errors identified on admission using Medicaid Web portals and electronic pharmaceutical claims data

Introduction

The role of pharmacists during medication reconciliation (MR) is well established, with a number of reports describing this in the context of psychiatric hospitalizations. However, medication errors (MEs) are common during transitions of care, with no exception during psychiatric hospitalizations. Our institution uses pharmacy-performed MR processes using patient interviews and reviewing objective sources, such as electronic pharmaceutical claims data (EPCD), which includes Medicaid Web portals. The inpatient psychiatric pharmacist reviews EPCD sources against previously pharmacy-completed MRs for new admissions, where if discrepancies are found, the patient is reinterviewed to identify and correct MEs.

Methods

We performed a prospective quality improvement project during 28 days to evaluate the quantity and classification of MEs upon admission to a 22-bed inpatient psychiatry unit.

Results

Of 52 included patients, where a cumulative 426 medications were reviewed, a total of 29 MEs in 16 patients were identified. Eight patients had discrepancies on their home medication lists when compared to EPCD, where 7 of these had at least 1 ME due to inaccurate MR.

Discussion

Of all the MEs identified, the greatest quantity was found secondary to the EPCD "double-check" method. The most common MEs in all patients were the omission of home medications (34%), wrong frequency (28%), and ordering medication the patient is not taking (10%). All patients admitted on long-acting injection antipsychotics had errors in last dose received. No MEs resulted in patient harm, and they were identified and corrected by the psychiatric pharmacist 97% of the time.

Caregiver and provider perspectives on dual VA and Medicare Part D medication use in veterans with suspected dementia or cognitive impairment

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Many older veterans with dementia fill prescriptions through both Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D benefits. Dual VA/Part D medication use may have unintended negative consequences on prescribing safety and quality. We aimed to characterize benefits and drawbacks of dual VA/Part D medication use in veterans with dementia or cognitive impairment from the perspectives of caregivers and providers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based on semistructured telephone interviews of 2 group: (1) informal caregivers accompanying veterans with suspected dementia or cognitive impairment to visits at a VA Geriatric Evaluation and Management clinic (n = 11) and (2) VA healthcare providers of veterans with dementia who obtained medications via VA and Part D (n = 12). We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with caregivers and providers about benefits and drawbacks of dual VA/Part D medication use. Interview transcripts were subjected to qualitative content analysis to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Caregivers and providers both described cost and convenience benefits to dual VA/Part D medication use. Caregivers reported drawbacks including poor communication between VA and non-VA providers and difficulty managing medications from multiple systems. Providers reported potential safety risks including communication barriers, conflicting care decisions, and drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study allow for understanding of potential policy interventions to better manage dual VA/Part D medication use for older veterans with dementia or cognitive impairment at a time when VA is expanding access to non-VA care.