Prevent medication errors on admission

Analysis of the discrepancies identified during medication reconciliation on patient admission in cardiology units: a descriptive study

Objectives:

this observational study aimed to describe the discrepancies identified during medication reconciliation on patient admission to cardiology units in a large hospital.

Methods:

the medication history of patients was collected within 48 hours after admission, and intentional and unintentional discrepancies were classified as omission, duplication, dose, frequency, timing, and route of drug administration.

Results:

most of the patients evaluated were women (58.0%) with a mean age of 59 years, and 75.5% of the patients had a Charlson comorbidity index score between 1 and 3. Of the 117 discrepancies found, 50.4% were unintentional. Of these, 61.0% involved omission, 18.6% involved dosage, 18.6% involved timing, and 1.7% involved the route of drug administration.

Conclusion:

this study revealed a high prevalence of discrepancies, most of which were related to omissions, and 50% were unintentional. These results reveal the number of drugs that are not reincorporated into the treatment of patients, which can have important clinical consequences.

Development of indicators to assess the quality of medicines reconciliation at hospital admission: an e-Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this Delphi study was to examine consensus on the appropriateness of the medicines reconciliation (MR) indicators.

METHODS

Practising hospital pharmacists in UK hospitals conducting MR in hospital wards were invited to participate in the study. Appropriateness was defined using four criteria: clarity, importance, relevance and usefulness. The modified Delphi technique was selected as a structured method to develop consensus. RAND definition for consensus was used. In the second round, feedback on the first round was provided. The study did not require Research Ethics approval.

KEY FINDINGS

Sixty-five hospital pharmacists completed the first round Delphi, and 59 of them completed the second round. Their experience ranged from three to 33 years with an average of 16.6 years. Fifty-five indicators were sent to the panel after the pilot study. Each of the two rounds took approximately 8 weeks to be completed. Forty-one indicators reached consensus to be appropriate. Fourteen indicators did not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi technique was very effective for enhancing the panel participation as noticed in their responses both in the first and second rounds. Forty-one indicators achieved consensus as being appropriate to evaluate the MR process. These indicators could be used to assess the process and hence improve the quality of the patient care on hospital admission. The indicators need to be used in practice.

Custom and practice: a multi-center study of medicines reconciliation following admission in four acute hospitals in the UK

BACKGROUND

Many studies have highlighted the problems associated with different aspects of medicines reconciliation (MR). These have been followed by numerous recommendations of good practice shown in published studies to decrease error; however, there is little to suggest that practice has significantly changed. The study reported here was conducted to review local medicines reconciliation practice and compare it to data within previously published evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine current medicines reconciliation practice in four acute hospitals (A-D) in one region of the United Kingdom and compare it to published best practices.

METHOD

Quantitative data on key indicators were collected prospectively from medical wards in the four hospitals using a proforma compiled from existing literature and previous, validated audits. Data were collected on: i) time between admission and MR being undertaken; ii) time to conduct MR; iii) number and type of sources used to ascertain current medication; and iv) number, type and potential severity of unintended discrepancies. The potential severity of the discrepancies was retrospectively dually rated in 10% of the sample using a professional panel.

RESULTS

Of the 250 charts reviewed (54 Hospital A, 61 Hospital B, 69 Hospital C, 66 Hospital D), 37.6% (92/245) of patients experienced at least one discrepancy on their drug chart, with the majority of these being omissions (237/413, 57.1%). A total of 413 discrepancies were discovered, an overall mean of 1.69 (413/245) discrepancies per patient. The number of sources used to reconcile medicines varied with 36.8% (91/247) only using one source of information and the patient being used as a source in less than half of all medicines reconciliations (45.7%, 113/247). In three out of the four hospitals the discrepancies were most frequently categorized as potentially requiring increased monitoring or intervention.

CONCLUSION

This study shows higher rates of unintended discrepancies per patient than those in previous studies, with omission being the most frequently occurring type of discrepancy. None of the four centers adhered to current UK guidance on medicines reconciliation. All four centers demonstrated a strong reliance on General Practitioner (GP)-based sources. A minority of discrepancies had the potential to cause injury to patients and to increase utilization of health care resources. There is a need to review current practice and procedures at transitions in care to improve the accuracy of medication history-taking at admission by doctors and to encourage pharmacy staff to use an increased number of sources to validate the medication history. Although early research indicates that safety can be improved through patient involvement, this study found that patients were not involved in the majority of reconciliation encounters.

[Pharmacological treatment conciliation methodology in patients with multiple conditions]

Objetivo

Realizar una revisión bibliográfica para identificar las diferentes metodologías empleadas en el proceso de conciliación de los tratamientos farmacológicos que sean aplicables a pacientes pluripatológicos.

Diseño

Revisión sistemática.

Fuentes de datos

Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica (febrero de 2012) en las bases de datos Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO e Índice Médico Español de métodos de conciliación del tratamiento en pacientes pluripatológicos, o en su defecto, ancianos o polimedicados.

Selección de estudios

Se recuperaron 273 artículos, de los que se seleccionaron 25.

Extracción de datos

Se extrajo información relativa a la metodología empleada: nivel asistencial en el que se realiza, fuentes de información, uso de formulario, tiempo establecido, profesional responsable, información recogida y variables registradas como errores de conciliación.

Resultados

La mayoría de estudios fueron al ingreso y al alta hospitalarios Como principales fuentes de información destacan la entrevista y la historia clínica. En la mayoría de trabajos no se especifica un tiempo preestablecido, ni se usa formulario, y el principal responsable es el farmacéutico clínico. Además de la medicación domiciliaria, los hábitos de automedicación y la fitoterapia también son registrados. Se recogen como errores de conciliación desde omisiones de fármacos hasta interacciones medicamentosas.

Conclusiones

Existe gran heterogeneidad en la metodología empleada para la actividad de la conciliación. No existe ningún trabajo realizado específicamente en el paciente pluripatológico, que por su complejidad y susceptibilidad a errores de conciliación requiere una metodología estandarizada.

The impact of an aged care pharmacist in a department of emergency medicine

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Departments of Emergency Medicine (DEM) have experienced increased demand largely because of the aging population. This project aimed to assess the impact of a specialist aged care pharmacist (ACP) on the efficiency and effectiveness of care of older patients seeking emergency treatment.

METHOD

Eligible patients presenting to the DEM of Bundaberg Hospital (Australia), aged ≥ 65 years with a chronic condition, or ≥ 70 years without a chronic condition, and an Australian Triage Category score of ≥ 2, were alternately allocated to either the ACP (for medication reconciliation and medication review roles, along with patient education and referrals where warranted), or continued management by the DEM doctor (control group).

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients were included (intervention, n = 101; control, n = 98), with no significant difference in mean age or gender distribution. While the ACP-managed group demonstrated a significantly greater length of stay than the control group, some confounding was likely. The ACP demonstrated greater vigilance than usual care in ensuring completeness and accuracy in charted medication orders. The ACP also provided timely clinical review for medication-related problems, with 81 issues identified for 73 admitted patients, and 24 issues among the 28 discharged patients. Qualitative data were strongly supportive, valuing and accepting of the ACP role.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence, on balance, supporting the integration of an ACP in the DEM assessing elderly patients. Further research of this role using longer sampling, in multiple sites and with economic analysis is recommended.

Clinical significance of medication reconciliation in children admitted to a UK pediatric hospital: observational study of neurosurgical patients

BACKGROUND

In December 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Patient Safety Agency in the UK (NICE-NPSA) published guidance that recommends all adults admitted to hospital receive medication reconciliation, usually by pharmacy staff. A costing and report tool was provided indicating a resource requirement of 12.9 million pounds for England per year. Pediatric patients are excluded from this guidance.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical significance of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital.

METHODS

A prospective observational study included pediatric patients admitted to a neurosurgical ward at Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, England, between September 2006 and March 2007. Medication reconciliation was conducted by a pharmacist after the admission of each of 100 consecutive eligible patients aged 4 months to 16 years. The clinical significance of prescribing disparities between pre-admission medications and initial admission medication orders was determined by an expert multidisciplinary panel and quantified using an analog scale. The main outcome measure was the clinical significance of unintentional variations between hospital admission medication orders and physician-prescribed pre-admission medication for repeat (continuing) medications.

RESULTS

Initial admission medication orders for children differed from prescribed pre-admission medication in 39% of cases. Half of all resulting prescribing variations in this setting had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. These results mirror findings for adults.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital has the potential to reduce discomfort or clinical deterioration by reducing unintentional changes to repeat prescribed medication. Consequently, there is no justification for the omission of children from the NICE-NPSA guidance concerning medication reconciliation in hospitals, and costing tools should include pediatric patients.

The effect of systematic medication review in elderly patients admitted to an acute ward of internal medicine

Elderly patients are vulnerable to medication errors and adverse drug events due to increased morbidity, polypharmacy and inappropriate interactions. The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic medication review and counselling performed by a clinical pharmacist and clinical pharmacologist would reduce length of in-hospital stay in elderly patients admitted to an acute ward of internal medicine. A randomized, controlled study of 100 patients aged 70 years or older was conducted in an acute ward of internal medicine in Denmark. Intervention arm: a clinical pharmacist conducted systematic medication reviews after an experienced medical physician had prescribed the patients' medication. Information was collected from medical charts, interview with the patients and database registrations of drug purchase. Subsequently, medication histories were conferred with a clinical pharmacologist and advisory notes recommending medication changes were completed. Physicians were not obliged to comply with the recommendations. Control arm: medication was reviewed by usual routine in the ward. Primary end-point was length of in-hospital stay. In addition, readmissions, mortality, contact to primary healthcare and quality of life were measured at 3-month follow-up. In the intervention arm, the mean length of in-hospital stay was 239.9 hr (95% CI: 190.2-289.6) and in the control arm: 238.6 hr (95% CI: 137.6-339.6), which was neither a statistical significant nor a clinically relevant difference. Moreover, no differences were observed for any of the secondary end-points. Systematic medication review and medication counselling did not show any effect on in-hospital length of stay in elderly patients when admitted to an acute ward of internal medicine.

A literature review of the individual and systems factors that contribute to medication errors in nursing practice

AIM

This paper reports a review of the empirical literature on factors that contribute to medication errors.

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. This creates an imperative to reduce medication errors to deliver safe and ethical care to patients.

METHOD

The databases CINAHL, PubMed, Science Direct and Synergy were searched from 1988 to 2007 using the keywords medication errors, medication management, medication reconciliation, medication knowledge and mathematical skills, and reporting medication errors. RESULTS Contributory factors to nursing medication errors are manifold, and include both individual and systems issues. These include medication reconciliation, the types of drug distribution system, the quality of prescriptions, and deviation from procedures including distractions during administration, excessive workloads, and nurse's knowledge of medications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

It is imperative that managers implement strategies to reduce medication errors including the establishment of reporting mechanisms at international and national levels to include the evaluation and audit of practice at a local level. Systematic approaches to medication reconciliation can also reduce medication error significantly. Promoting consistency between health care professionals as to what constitutes medication error will contribute to increased accuracy and compliance in reporting of medication errors, thereby informing health care policies aimed at reducing the occurrence of medication errors. Acquisition and maintenance of mathematical competency for nurses in practice is an important issue in the prevention of medication error. The health care industry can benefit from learning from other high-risk industries such as aviation in the prevention and management of systems errors.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions aimed at preventing medication error at hospital admission (medicines reconciliation)

RATIONALE

Medication errors can lead to preventable adverse drug events (pADEs) that have significant cost and health implications. Errors often occur at care interfaces, and various interventions have been devised to reduce medication errors at the point of admission to hospital. The aim of this study is to assess the incremental costs and effects [measured as quality adjusted life years (QALYs)] of a range of such interventions for which evidence of effectiveness exists.

METHODS

A previously published medication errors model was adapted to describe the pathway of errors occurring at admission through to the occurrence of pADEs. The baseline model was populated using literature-based values, and then calibrated to observed outputs. Evidence of effects was derived from a systematic review of interventions aimed at preventing medication error at hospital admission.

RESULTS

All five interventions, for which evidence of effectiveness was identified, are estimated to be extremely cost-effective when compared with the baseline scenario. Pharmacist-led reconciliation intervention has the highest expected net benefits, and a probability of being cost-effective of over 60% by a QALY value of pound10 000.

CONCLUSIONS

The medication errors model provides reasonably strong evidence that some form of intervention to improve medicines reconciliation is a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The variation in the reported effectiveness of the few identified studies of medication error interventions illustrates the need for extreme attention to detail in the development of interventions, but also in their evaluation and may justify the primary evaluation of more than one specification of included interventions.