Impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hospital Adaptions to Mitigate the COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on MARQUIS Toolkit Implementation and Sustainability

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perceived effects of COVID-19 on MARQUIS toolkit implementation and sustainability, challenges faced by hospitals in sustaining medication reconciliation efforts, and the strategies used to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTINGS

Primary qualitative data were extracted from a Web-based survey. Data were collected from hospitals that participated in MARQUIS2 ( n = 18) and the MARQUIS Collaborative ( n = 5).

STUDY DESIGN

A qualitative, cross-sectional study was conducted.

DATA COLLECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

Qualitative data were extracted from a Research Electronic Data Capture survey databased and uploaded into an Excel data analysis template. Two coders independently coded the data with a third coder resolving discrepancies.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-one team members participated, including pharmacists ( n = 20; 65%), physicians ( n = 9; 29%), or quality-improvement (QI) specialists ( n = 2; 6%) with expertise in medication reconciliation (MedRec) (14; 45%) or QI (10; 32%). Organizational resources were limited, including funding, staffing, and access to pharmacy students. To support program continuation, hospitals reallocated staff and used new MedRec order sets. Telemedicine, workflow adaptations, leadership support, QI team involvement, and ongoing audits and feedback promoted toolkit sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 affected the capacity of hospitals to sustain the MARQUIS toolkit. However, hospitals adapted various strategies to sustain the toolkit.

Electronic health record intervention to increase use of NSAIDs as analgesia for hospitalised patients: a cluster randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Prescribing non-opioid pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) medications, has been shown to reduce pain and decrease opioid use, but it is unclear how to effectively encourage multimodal pain medication prescribing for hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prechecking non-opioid pain medication orders on clinician prescribing of NSAIDs among hospitalised adults.

METHODS

This was a cluster randomised controlled trial of adult (≥18 years) hospitalised patients admitted to three hospital sites under one quaternary hospital system in the USA from 2 March 2022 to 3 March 2023. A multimodal pain order panel was embedded in the admission order set, with NSAIDs prechecked in the intervention group. The intervention group could uncheck the NSAID order. The control group had access to the same NSAID order. The primary outcome was an increase in NSAID ordering. Secondary outcomes include NSAID administration, inpatient pain scores and opioid use and prescribing and relevant clinical harms including acute kidney injury, new gastrointestinal bleed and in-hospital death.

RESULTS

Overall, 1049 clinicians were randomised. The study included 6239 patients for a total of 9595 encounters. Both NSAID ordering (36 vs 43%, p<0.001) and administering (30 vs 34%, p=0.001) by the end of the first full hospital day were higher in the intervention (prechecked) group. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid outcomes during the hospitalisation and at discharge. There was a statistically but perhaps not clinically significant difference in pain scores during both the first and last full hospital day.

CONCLUSIONS

This cluster randomised controlled trial showed that prechecking an order for NSAIDs to promote multimodal pain management in the admission order set increased NSAID ordering and administration, although there were no changes to pain scores or opioid use. While prechecking orders is an important way to increase adoption, safety checks should be in place.

Electronic Medication Reconciliation Tools Aimed at Healthcare Professionals to Support Medication Reconciliation: a Systematic Review

The development of health information technology available and accessible to professionals is increasing in the last few years. However, a low number of electronic health tools included some kind of information about medication reconciliation. To identify all the electronic medication reconciliation tools aimed at healthcare professionals and summarize their main features, availability, and clinical impact on patient safety. A systematic review of studies that included a description of an electronic medication reconciliation tool (web-based or mobile app) aimed at healthcare professionals was conducted. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: registration number CRD42022366662, and followed PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was performed using four healthcare databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus with no language or publication date restrictions. We identified a total of 1227 articles, of which only 12 met the inclusion criteria.Through these articles,12 electronic tools were detected. Viewing and comparing different medication lists and grouping medications into multiple categories were some of the more recurring features of the tools. With respect to the clinical impact on patient safety, a reduction in adverse drug events or medication discrepancies was detected in up to four tools, but no significant differences in emergency room visits or hospital readmissions were found. 12 e-MedRec tools aimed at health professionals have been developed to date but none was designed as a mobile app. The main features that healthcare professionals requested to be included in e-MedRec tools were interoperability, "user-friendly" information, and integration with the ordering process.

A behavioral intervention to promote use of multimodal pain medication for hospitalized patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce pain and has become a core strategy to decrease opioid use, but there is a lack of data to describe encouraging use when admitting patients using electronic health record systems.

OBJECTIVE

Assess an electronic health record system to increase ordering of NSAIDs for hospitalized adults.

DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial of clinicians admitting adult patients to a health system over a 9-month period. Clinicians were randomized to use a standard admission order set.

INTERVENTION

Clinicians in the intervention arm were required to actively order or decline NSAIDs; the control arm was shown the same order but without a required response.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was NSAIDs ordered and administered by the first full hospital day. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

A total of 20,085 hospitalizations were included. Among these hospitalizations, patients had a mean age of 58 years, and a Charlson comorbidity score of 2.97, while 50% and 56% were female and White, respectively. Overall, 52% were admitted by a clinician randomized to the intervention arm. NSAIDs were ordered in 2267 (22%) interventions and 2093 (22%) control admissions (p = .10). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in NSAID administration, pain scores, or opioid prescribing. Average pain scores (0-5 scale) were 3.36 in the control group and 3.39 in the intervention group (p = .46). There were no differences in clinical harms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Requiring an active decision to order an NSAID at admission had no demonstrable impact on NSAID ordering. Multicomponent interventions, perhaps with stronger decision support, may be necessary to encourage NSAID ordering.

Analysis of the nature and contributory factors of medication safety incidents following hospital discharge using National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from England and Wales: a multi-method study

Introduction

Improving medication safety during transition of care is an international healthcare priority. While existing research reveals that medication-related incidents and associated harms may be common following hospital discharge, there is limited information about their nature and contributory factors at a national level which is crucial to inform improvement strategy.

Aim

To characterise the nature and contributory factors of medication-related incidents during transition of care from secondary to primary care.

Method

A retrospective analysis of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019. Descriptive analysis identified the frequency and nature of incidents and content analysis of free text data, coded using the Patient Safety Research Group (PISA) classification, examined the contributory factors and outcome of incidents.

Results

A total of 1121 medication-related incident reports underwent analysis. Most incidents involved patients over 65 years old (55%, n = 626/1121). More than one in 10 (12.6%, n = 142/1121) incidents were associated with patient harm. The drug monitoring (17%) and administration stages (15%) were associated with a higher proportion of harmful incidents than any other drug use stages. Common medication classes associated with incidents were the cardiovascular (n = 734) and central nervous (n = 273) systems. Among 408 incidents reporting 467 contributory factors, the most common contributory factors were organisation factors (82%, n = 383/467) (mostly related to continuity of care which is the delivery of a seamless service through integration, co-ordination, and the sharing of information between different providers), followed by staff factors (16%, n = 75/467).

Conclusion

Medication incidents after hospital discharge are associated with patient harm. Several targets were identified for future research that could support the development of remedial interventions, including commonly observed medication classes, older adults, increase patient engagement, and improve shared care agreement for medication monitoring post hospital discharge.

Plain language summary

Study using reports about unsafe or substandard care mainly written by healthcare professionals to better understand the type and causes of medication safety problems following hospital discharge Why was the study done? The safe use of medicines after hospital discharge has been highlighted by the World Health Organization as an important target for improvement in patient care. Yet, the type of medication problems which occur, and their causes are poorly understood across England and Wales, which may hamper our efforts to create ways to improve care as they may not be based on what we know causes the problem in the first place.What did the researchers do? The research team studied medication safety incident reports collected across England and Wales over a 5-year period to better understand what kind of medication safety problems occur after hospital discharge and why they happen, so we can find ways to prevent them from happening in future.What did the researchers find? The total number of incident reports studied was 1121, and the majority (n = 626) involved older people. More than one in ten of these incidents caused harm to patients. The most common medications involved in the medication safety incidents were for cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, conditions such as mental illness, pain and neurological conditions (e.g., epilepsy) and other illnesses such as diabetes. The most common causes of these incidents were because of the organisation rules, such as information sharing, followed by staff issues, such as not following protocols, individual mistakes and not having the right skills for the task.What do the findings mean? This study has identified some important targets that can be a focus of future efforts to improve the safe use of medicines after hospital discharge. These include concentrating attention on medication for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems (e.g., via incorporating them in prescribing safety indicators and pharmaceutical prioritisation tools), staff skill mix (e.g., embedding clinical pharmacist roles at key parts of the care pathway where greatest risk is suspected), and implementation of electronic interventions to improve timely communication of medication and other information between healthcare providers.

Discrepancies in patients' medication lists from pharmacies in Sweden: an interview study before the implementation of the Swedish National Medication List

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies in medication lists are common and can contribute to drug-related problems. This study was performed before the implementation of the National Medication List in Sweden, an intervention expected to improve the accuracy of medication lists.

AIM

The aim of the study was to examine the number and type of discrepancies in the medication list from pharmacies in Sweden. The secondary aim was to describe the information sources Swedish patients used as their medication lists and how confident they were with the information.

METHOD

Structured interviews were conducted with patients at 13 community pharmacies in Sweden during the period October 5, 2020, to April 16, 2021. The printed medication list was reviewed together with the patient to identify any discrepancies and missing information.

RESULTS

A total of 327 patients were included in the study (response rate 51%). The printed medication list from pharmacies was the most common information source for patients to know which medications to use. Two thirds (n  =  215) of the patients had at least one discrepancy among their prescriptions and 32% (n  =  106) were missing at least one prescription medication. Among all prescriptions (n  =  2567) 10% (n  =  264) were non-current prescriptions, 9% (n  =  238) were duplicates and 3% (n  =  88) had the wrong dose. The proportion of prescriptions with discrepancies differed between drug-groups.

CONCLUSION

The discrepancies described in this study can have serious consequences, and results provide a baseline for studies after the implementation of the National Medication List.

Impact of pharmacist-initiated educational interventions on improving medication reconciliation practice in geriatric inpatients during hospital admission in Vietnam

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Unintentional medication discrepancies (UMDs) are common in geriatric patients during care transitions, resulting in frequent undesirable consequences. Medication reconciliation could be a useful practice to prevent or ameliorate UMD. However, this practice in Vietnamese hospitals has not been well established or standardized. This study aims to determine the effect of pharmacist-initiated educational interventions on improving medication reconciliation practice.

METHODS

This prospective 6-month pre-and post-study was conducted in two internal medicine wards in a Vietnamese 800-bed public hospital. Pharmacists provided training and short-term support to physicians on medication reconciliation. Primary outcome measures were the proportions of patients with at least one UMD at admission. Secondary outcome measures were the proportions of patients with preventable adverse drug events (pADEs) score ≥0.1 due to these UMDs. Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were assessed based on a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One hundred fifty-two patients were recruited in the pre-intervention phase, and 146 in the post-intervention phase. Following the intervention, the proportion of geriatric patients with ≥1 UMD at admission significantly decreased from 55.3 to 25.3 % (ORadj 0.255, 95% CI: 0.151-0.431). Similarly, the proportion of patients with a pADE ≥0.1 at admission reduced from 44.1 to 11.6% [ORadj 0.188, 95% CI: 0.105-0.340] post-intervention.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our pharmacist-initiated educational interventions have demonstrated the ability to produce substantial improvement in medication reconciliation practice, reducing UMDs and potential harm. Our approach may provide an alternate option to implement medication reconciliation for jurisdictions with limited healthcare resources.

A Narrative Review of Adverse Event Detection, Monitoring, and Prevention in Indian Hospitals

An adverse event is any abnormal clinical finding associated with the use of a therapy. Adverse events are classified by reporting an event's seriousness, expectedness, and relatedness. Monitoring patient safety is of utmost importance as more and more data becomes available. In reality, very low numbers of adverse events are reported via the official path. Chart review, voluntary reporting, computerized surveillance, and direct observation can detect adverse drug events. Medication errors are commonly seen in hospitals and need provider and system-based interventions to prevent them. The need of the hour in India is to develop and implement medication safety best practices to avoid adverse events. The utility of artificial intelligence techniques in adverse event detection remains unexplored, and their accuracy and precision need to be studied in a controlled setting. There is a need to develop predictive models to assess the likelihood of adverse reactions while testing novel pharmaceutical drugs.

Should Pharmacists Lead Medication Reconciliation in Critical Care? A One-Stem Interventional Study in an Egyptian Intensive Care Unit

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to compare physician-obtained medication histories to the practice of medication reconciliation undertaken by a pharmacist in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A one-stem interventional study involving 500 adults 18 years and older admitted to the ICU (50 beds) of an Egyptian Joint Commission International-accredited reference hospital was conducted. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of ICU patients with missing medications in the cohorts of physician versus pharmacist-led medication reconciliation. The secondary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who had at least one clinical condition or adverse event (AE) that was left untreated during hospitalization of the 2 arms of patients after reconciliation.

RESULTS

A total of 500 patients received reconciliation. Medication discrepancies in the cohort of physician-led reconciliation were greater than that of the pharmacist (26.1% versus 2.6%, P = 0.001). The most common discrepancy was indication with no medication, which was found to be greater in the physician-led cohort of patients than that of the pharmacist cohort (25.2% versus 2.6%, P = 0.001). Untreated AEs in the former cohort were present in 9.1% of cases versus 1.5% in the pharmacist-led reconciliation cohort ( P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed that pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in ICU has dramatically decreased medication discrepancies and AEs in adults with acute ICU admissions.

Medication reconciliation on discharge in a tertiary care Riyadh Hospital: An observational study

The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and characteristics of discharge medication discrepancies as identified by pharmacists during discharge medication reconciliation. We also attempted to identify the factors that influence the occurrence of drug discrepancies during medication reconciliation. From June to December 2019, a prospective study was performed at the cardiac center of King Fahad Medical City (KFMC), a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh. The information from discharge prescriptions as compared to the medication administration record (MAR), medication history in the cortex system, and the patient home medication list collected from the medication reconciliation form on admission. The study included all adult patients discharged from KFMC’s cardiac center. These participants comprised 776 patients, 64.6 percent of whom were men and 35.4 percent of whom were women. Medication discrepancies were encountered in 180 patients (23.2%) out of 776 patients. In regards to the number of discharged medications, 651(83.9%) patients had ≥ 5 medications. Around, 174 (73.4%) discrepancies were intentional, and 63 (26.6%) were unintentional discrepancies. The risk of unintentional medication discrepancy was increased with an increasing number of medications (P-value = 0.008). One out of every four cardiac patients discharged from our hospital had at least one medication discrepancy. The number of drugs taken and the number of discrepancies was found to be related. Necessary steps should be taken to reduce these discrepancies and improve the standard of care.

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation proved an effective strategy to decrease the risk of medication discrepancy-related errors. However, it is still under pilot in China and its effectiveness in the Chinese healthcare system remains unclear. This study aims to conduct a pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation intervention for elderly patients in county hospitals in China and to evaluate its effect.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, assessor-blinded, cluster, non-randomised, controlled study for elderly patients. The study will be conducted in seven county hospitals, and the clusters will be hospital wards. In each hospital, two internal medicine wards will be randomly allocated into either intervention group or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation, and those in the control group will receive standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of medication discrepancy, and the secondary outcomes are patients' medication adherence, healthcare utilisation and medical costs within 30 days after discharge.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee approval of this study was obtained from Peking University Institution Review Board (IRB00001052-21016). We have also obtained ethical approvals from all the participating centres. The findings will be published in scientific and conference presentations.

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100045668.

Medicines Reconciliation in the Emergency Department: Important Prescribing Discrepancies between the Shared Medication Record and Patients’ Actual Use of Medication

Medication reconciliation is crucial to prevent medication errors. In Denmark, primary and secondary care physicians can prescribe medication in the same electronic prescribing system known as the Shared Medication Record (SMR). However, the SMR is not always updated by physicians, which can lead to discrepancies between the SMR and patients’ actual use of medication. These discrepancies may compromise patient safety upon admission to the emergency department (ED). Here, we investigated (a) the occurrence of discrepancies, (b) factors associated with discrepancies, and (c) the percentage of patients accessible to a clinical pharmacist during pharmacy working hours. The study included all patients age ≥ 18 years who were admitted to the Hvidovre Hospital ED on three consecutive days in June 2020. The clinical pharmacists performed medicines reconciliation to identify prescribing discrepancies. In total, 100 patients (52% male; median age 66.5 years) were included. The patients had a median of 10 [IQR 7–13] medications listed in the SMR and a median of two [IQR 1–3.25] discrepancies. Factors associated with increased rate of prescribing discrepancies were age < 65 years, time since last update of the SMR ≥ 115 days, and patients’ self-dispensing their medications. Eighty-four percent of patients were available for medicines reconciliations during the normal working hours of the clinical pharmacist. In conclusion, we found that discrepancies between the SMR and patients’ actual medication use upon admission to the ED are frequent, and we identified several risk factors associated with the increased rate of discrepancies.

Evaluation of a web-based medication reconciliation application within a primary care setting: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite routine review of medication lists during patient encounters, patients’ medication lists are often incomplete and not reflective of actual medication use. Contributing to this situation is the challenge of reconciling medication information from existing health records, along with external locations (eg, pharmacies, other provider/hospital records, and care facilities) and patient-reported use. Advances in the interoperability and digital collection of information provides a foundation for integration of these once disparate information sources.

Objective

We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of and satisfaction with an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated web-based medication reconciliation application, MedTrue (MT).

Methods

We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of MT in 6 primary care clinics within an integrated health care delivery system. Our primary outcome was medication list accuracy, as determined by a pharmacist-collected best-possible medication history (BPMH). Patient and staff perspectives were evaluated through surveys and semistructured interviews.

Results

Overall, 224 patients were recruited and underwent a BPMH with the pharmacist (n=118 [52.7%] usual care [UC], n=106 [47.3%] MT). For our primary outcome of medication list accuracy, 8 (7.5%) patients in the MT arm and 9 (7.6%) in the UC arm had 0 discrepancies (odds ratio=1.01, 95% CI 0.38-2.72, P=.98). The most common discrepancy identified was patients reporting no longer taking a medication (UC mean 2.48 vs MT mean 2.58, P=.21). Patients found MT easy to use and on average would highly recommend MT (average net promoter score=8/10). Staff found MT beneficial but difficult to implement.

Conclusions

The use of a web-based application integrated into the EHR which combines EHR, patient-reported data, and pharmacy-dispensed data did not improve medication list accuracy among a population of primary care patients compared to UC but was well received by patients. Future studies should address the limitations of the current application and assess whether improved implementation strategies would impact the effectiveness of the application.

Changes Made to Orders Placed by Overnight Admitting Residents on Teaching Rounds the Next Day

OBJECTIVES

Increased focus on health care quality and safety has generally led to additional resident supervision by attending physicians. At our children's hospital, residents place orders overnight that are not explicitly reviewed by attending physicians until morning rounds. We aimed to categorize the types of orders that are added or discontinued on morning rounds the morning after admission to a resident team and to understand the rationale for these order additions and discontinuations.

METHODS

We used our hospital's data warehouse to generate a report of orders placed by residents overnight that were discontinued the next morning and orders that were added on rounds the morning after admission to a resident team from July 1, 2017 to June 29, 2018. Retrospective chart review was performed on included orders to determine the reason for order changes.

RESULTS

Our report identified 5927 orders; 538 were included for analysis after exclusion of duplicate orders, administrative orders, and orders for patients admitted to non-Pediatric Hospital Medicine services. The reason for order discontinuation or addition was medical decision-making (n = 357, 66.4%), change in patient trajectory (n = 151, 28.1%), and medical error (n = 30, 5.6%). Medical errors were most commonly related to medications (n = 24, 80%) and errors of omission (n = 19, 63%).

CONCLUSIONS

New or discontinued orders commonly resulted from evolving patient management decisions or changes in patient trajectory; medical errors represented a small subset of identified orders. Medical errors were often errors of omission, suggesting an area to direct future safety initiatives.

Medication discrepancies among hospitalized patients with hypertension: assessment of prevalence and risk factors

Background

Medication errors remained among the top 10 leading causes of death worldwide. Furthermore, a high percentage of medication errors are classified as medication discrepancies. This study aimed to identify and quantify the different types of unintentional medication discrepancies among hospitalized hypertensive patients; it also explored the predictors of unintentional medication discrepancies among this cohort of patients.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study undertaken in a large teaching hospital. A convenience sample of adult patients, taking ≥4 regular medications, with a prior history of treated hypertension admitted to a medical or surgical ward were recruited. The best possible medication histories were obtained by hospital pharmacists using at least two information sources. These histories were compared to the admission medication orders to identify any possible unintentional discrepancies. These discrepancies were classified based on their severity. Finally, the different predictors affecting unintentional discrepancies occurrence were recognized.

Results

A high rate of unintentional medication discrepancies has been found, with approximately 46.7% of the patients had at least one unintentional discrepancy. Regression analysis showed that for every one year of increased age, the number of unintentional discrepancies per patient increased by 0.172 (P = 0.007), and for every additional medication taken prior to hospital admission, the number of discrepancies increased by 0.258 (P= 0.003). While for every additional medication at hospital admission, the number of discrepancies decreased by 0.288 (P < 0.001). Cardiovascular medications, such as diuretics and beta-blockers, were associated with the highest rates of unintentional discrepancies in our study. Medication omission was the most common type of the identified discrepancies, with approximately 46.1% of the identified discrepancies were related to omission. Regarding the clinical significance of the identified discrepancies, around two-third of them were of moderate to high significance (n= 124, 64.2%), which had the potential to cause moderate or severe worsening of the patient´s medical condition.

Conclusions

Unintentional medication discrepancies are highly prevalent among hypertensive patients. Medication omission was the most commonly encountered discrepancy type. Health institutions should implement appropriate and effective tools and strategies to reduce these medication discrepancies and enhance patient safety at different care transitions. Further studies are needed to assess whether such discrepancies might affect blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Implementation of a shared medication list in primary care - a controlled pre-post study of medication discrepancies

Background

Access to medicines information is important when treating patients, yet discrepancies in medication records are common. Many countries are developing shared medication lists across health care providers. These systems can improve information sharing, but little is known about how they affect the need for medication reconciliation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an electronically Shared Medication List (eSML) reduced discrepancies between medication lists in primary care.

Methods

In 2018, eSML was tested for patients in home care who received multidose drug dispensing (MDD) in Oslo, Norway. We followed this transition from the current paper-based medication list to an eSML. Medication lists from the GP, home care service and community pharmacy were compared 3 months before the implementation and 18 months after. MDD patients in a neighbouring district in Oslo served as a control group.

Results

One hundred eighty-nine patients were included (100 intervention; 89 control). Discrepancies were reduced from 389 to 122 (p <  0.001) in the intervention group, and from 521 to 503 in the control group (p = 0.734). After the implementation, the share of mutual prescription items increased from 77 to 94%. Missing prescriptions for psycholeptics, analgesics and dietary supplements was reduced the most.

Conclusions

The eSML greatly decreases discrepancies between the GP, home care and pharmacy medication lists, but does not eliminate the need for medication reconciliation.

Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88).  Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

Personal Electronic Records of Medications (PERMs) for medication reconciliation at care transitions: a rapid realist review

Background

Medication reconciliation (MedRec), a process to reduce medication error at care transitions, is labour- and resource-intensive and time-consuming. Use of Personal Electronic Records of Medications (PERMs) in health information systems to support MedRec have proven challenging. Relatively little is known about the design, use or implementation of PERMs at care transitions that impacts on MedRec in the ‘real world’. To respond to this gap in knowledge we undertook a rapid realist review (RRR). The aim was to develop theories to explain how, why, when, where and for whom PERMs are designed, implemented or used in practice at care transitions that impacts on MedRec.

Methodology

We used realist methodology and undertook the RRR between August 2020 and February 2021. We collaborated with experts in the field to identify key themes. Articles were sourced from four databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL Complete and OpenGrey) to contribute to the theory development. Quality assessment, screening and data extraction using NVivo was completed. Contexts, mechanisms and outcomes configurations were identified and synthesised. The experts considered these theories for relevance and practicality and suggested refinements.

Results

Ten provisional theories were identified from 19 articles. Some theories relate to the design (T2 Inclusive design, T3 PERMs complement existing good processes, T7 Interoperability), some relate to the implementation (T5 Tailored training, T9 Positive impact of legislation or governance), some relate to use (T6 Support and on-demand training) and others relate iteratively to all stages of the process (T1 Engage stakeholders, T4 Build trust, T8 Resource investment, T10 Patients as users of PERMs).

Conclusions

This RRR has allowed additional valuable data to be extracted from existing primary research, with minimal resources, that may impact positively on future developments in this area. The theories are interdependent to a greater or lesser extent; several or all of the theories may need to be in play to collectively impact on the design, implementation or use of PERMs for MedRec at care transitions. These theories should now be incorporated into an intervention and evaluated to further test their validity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01659-8.

Effect of electronic medication reconciliation at the time of hospital discharge on inappropriate medication use in the community: an interrupted time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if enhanced electronic medication reconciliation systems can reduce inappropriate medication use and improve patient care. We evaluated trends in potentially inappropriate medication use after hospital discharge before and after adoption of an electronic medication reconciliation system.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis in 3 tertiary care hospitals in London, Ontario, using linked health care data (2011-2019). We included patients aged 66 years and older who were discharged from hospital. Starting between Apr. 13 and May 21, 2014, physicians were required to complete an electronic medication reconciliation module for each discharged patient. As a process outcome, we evaluated the proportion of patients who continued to receive a benzodiazepine, antipsychotic or gastric acid suppressant as an outpatient when these medications were first started during the hospital stay. The clinical outcome was a return to hospital within 90 days of discharge with a fall or fracture among patients who received a new benzodiazepine or antipsychotic during their hospital stay. We used segmented linear regression for the analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 15 932 patients with a total of 18 405 hospital discharge episodes. Before the implementation of the electronic medication reconciliation system, 16.3% of patients received a prescription for a benzodiazepine, antipsychotic or gastric acid suppressant after their hospital stay. After implementation, there was a significant and immediate 7.0% absolute decline in this proportion (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5% to 9.5%). Before implementation, 4.1% of discharged patients who newly received a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic returned to hospital with a fracture or fall within 90 days. After implementation, there was a significant and immediate 2.3% absolute decline in this outcome (95% CI 0.3% to 4.3%).

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of an electronic medication reconciliation system in 3 tertiary care hospitals reduced potentially inappropriate medication use and associated adverse events when patients transitioned back to the community. Enhanced electronic medication reconciliation systems may allow other hospitals to improve patient safety.

Medication reconciliation process: Assessing value, adoption, and the potential of information technology from pharmacists' perspective

The Medication Reconciliation (MedRec) process aims to improve patient safety through safe prescription and medication administration. A validated survey was carried out to address aspects related to MedRec process, its obstacles, the role of information technology, and the required functionalities for optimizing the MedRec process. A total of 81% of the survey's respondents acknowledged the roles of EHR (62% of respondents), PHR (41%), and electronic medication registration list (33%) as necessary technology tools for MedRec. Most respondents emphasized the need to compile multiple medications' entries of information technology systems into one application (96.4%), allowing the entries from community pharmacies (90.6%). Further, incorporating information technology into the MedRec process presents a challenge in terms of legal responsibility (92 %) and the ability to integrate medications with other hospitals and community medications (78.6%). Findings affirm the need for a well-designed MedRec process aided with information technology solutions. The external data and user preferences should be considered when redesigning the MedRec process. The study also suggests initiating a policy that mandates sharing data necessary for creating a compiled medication list for each patient. MedRec is an indispensable tool for building a fruitful medication management system in a healthcare organization.

Medication Safety in Mental Health Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Incidents Reported to the National Reporting and Learning System

BACKGROUND

Medication safety incidents commonly occur in mental health hospitals. There is a need to improve the understanding of the circumstances that are thought to have played a part in the origin of these incidents to design safer systems to improve patient safety.

AIM

This study aimed to undertake a mixed-methods analysis of medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System in England and Wales in 2010 to 2017.

METHOD

Quantitative analyses of anonymized medication safety incidents occurring in mental health hospitals that were reported to the National Reporting and Learning System during an 8-year period were undertaken to characterize their type, severity, and the medication(s) involved. Second, a content analysis of the free-text reports associated with all incidents of at least moderate harm severity was undertaken to identify the underlying contributory factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 94,134 medication incident reports were examined, of which 10.4% (n = 9811) were reported to have resulted in harm. The 3 most frequent types of reported medication incidents involved omission of medication (17,302; 18.3%), wrong frequency (11,882; 12.6%), and wrong/unclear dose of medication (10,272; 10.9%). Medicines from the central nervous system (42,609; 71.0%), cardiovascular (4537; 7.6%), and endocrine (3669; 6.1%) medication classes were the most frequently involved with incidents. Failure to follow protocols (n = 93), lack of continuity of care (n = 92), patient behaviors (n = 62), and lack of stock (n = 51) were frequently reported as contributory factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication incidents pose an enduring threat to patient safety in mental health hospitals. This study has identified important targets that can guide the tailored development of remedial interventions.

Causes of discrepancies between medications listed in the national electronic prescribing system and patients' actual use of medications

Discrepancies between registered prescriptions and patients' actual use of medications are described as frequent and often resulting in adverse medication events. We aimed to assess the extent of and causes behind discrepancies between medications listed in the Danish national prescription system (Shared Medication Record) and patients' actual use of medications. We prospectively reconciled medication for 260 consecutively admitted polypharmacy patients (>50 years and ≥5 prescriptions) at two hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark. The type of discrepancies were determined and the cause of the discrepancies were evaluated as primarily caused by (1) the patient (i.e., intentional or unintentional non-adherence) or (2) the health care system (i.e., lack of appropriate update of the SMR by physicians in primary or secondary care). There was a median of 12 [IQR 9-15] medications listed and 3 [IQR 1-5] medication discrepancies per patient (total n = 925). The majority (53%) of discrepancies were caused by the health care system, 32% were caused by the patients, of which 70% were intentional non-adherence, and 15% had an indeterminable cause. In conclusion, discrepancies between medications listed in the Shared Medication Record and actual use of medications were frequent and were most often caused by clinicians not updating the prescription information.

Medication discrepancy rates and sources upon nursing home intake: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Medication discrepancies at nursing home intake increase the risk of drug-related adverse events. Measuring discrepancy incidence rates and locating the origins of discrepancies can assist in identifying information exchange deficits for high-risk medications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine class-specific discrepancy rates, to determine discordance between medication lists, and to explore patient and system-level factors associated with medication discrepancies discovered between the first and second medication reconciliations conducted at nursing home intake.

METHODS

Medication discrepancy data were prospectively collected from four long-term care facilities over a 9-month period. Medication discrepancies were defined as mismatched prescribing orders between at least two medication history lists. Discrepancy locations were defined as the pairs or triads of facilities between which medication history lists were discordant. Unadjusted logistic regressions were used to identify medication classes with the highest discrepancy rates and patient factors significantly associated with any medication discrepancy.

RESULTS

40.8% of newly admitted or re-admitted residents and 6.3% of medications reviewed had at least one medication discrepancy discovered during the second medication reconciliation conducted at nursing home intake. Residents prescribed fewer than 14 medications were at less risk of discrepancies. Residents with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5, COPD, HF, anemia or HTN were at greater risk of discrepancies. Respiratory and analgesic medications were twice as likely as other medication classes to be discrepant (OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.4; OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.5). Most discrepancies occurred between hospital and nursing home lists (44.9%), or between the hospital, nursing home, and community pharmacy lists (39.3%) CONCLUSIONS: Given the higher risk of discrepancies within respiratory or analgesics, transitions of care teams need to prioritize residents with respiratory conditions or pain. Although re-admitted residents' increased discrepancy risk is likely due to poorer health status, miscommunications across the nursing home, hospital and community pharmacy require further research to clarify system failures.

Emergency room evaluation and recommendations for older emergency department users: results of the ER2 experimental study

PURPOSE

The study aims to examine whether the use of "emergency room evaluation and recommendations" (ER²) tool in daily ED practice reduces the length of stay in ED and hospital, and hospital admission in older patients visiting ED on stretcher.

METHODS

A total of 3931 older patients visiting ED of the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) on stretcher were recruited in this non-randomized, pre-post intervention, single arm, prospective and longitudinal open-label trial. ED staff and patients were blinded of the ER² score and patients received usual ED care over the observational phase, whereas ED staff were informed about the ER² score and patients had usual care plus interventions based on tailor-made geriatric recommendations during the interventional phase. The length of stay in ED and in hospital, and hospital admission were the outcomes.

RESULTS

The ER² recommendations were associated with increased length of stay in ED (β = 2.94 with P ≤ 0.001) and decreased length of stay in hospital (β = - 2.07 with P = 0.011). No effect was found for hospital admission (Odd Ratio (OR) = 0.92 with P = 0.182).

CONCLUSION

Emergency room evaluation and recommendations (ER²) tool had mixed effects. Shorter hospital stay has been reported for older ED users hospitalized, but increased ED stay and no effects on hospital admission were found.

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.

Advanced Medication Reconciliation: A Systematic Review of the Impact on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events Associated with Transitions of Care

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the impact of in-hospital electronic/enhanced medication reconciliation compared to basic medication reconciliation on medication errors, discrepancies, and adverse drug events (ADEs).

METHODS

The study team searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles in EMBASE, OVID, and Scopus databases up to October 2019. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pre-post, or interrupted time series designs with medication errors, discrepancies, or ADEs as an outcome, and medication reconciliation applied at hospital discharge. Basic medication reconciliation was defined as using a paper-based format, electronic medication reconciliation as using an electronic format, and enhanced medication reconciliation as incorporating additional interventions to reduce medication errors.

RESULTS

Ten studies (three RCTs, one retrospective cohort study, two interrupted time series studies, three pre-post studies, and one longitudinal study) were identified, with six and four studies comparing basic medication reconciliation to electronic and enhanced medication reconciliation, respectively. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low (three), unclear (two), moderate (three), and serious/high (two). In general, studies demonstrated that electronic medication reconciliation reduced the odds of a medication discrepancy or ADE and may reduce the mean number of medication discrepancies. Enhanced medication reconciliation was more equivocal, with some studies showing improvement; however, risk of bias was generally significant.

CONCLUSION

Electronic medication reconciliation tends to reduce the risk of ADE; however, these conclusions were limited due to a lack of consistency in study settings, interventions, and outcome definitions. Future studies with more rigorous designs and standardized outcome definitions would provide clarity on this topic.

The Development and Piloting of the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record Evaluation Tool: Lessons Learned

BACKGROUND

Substantial research has been performed about the impact of computerized physician order entry on medication safety in the inpatient setting; however, relatively little has been done in ambulatory care, where most medications are prescribed.

OBJECTIVE

To outline the development and piloting process of the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record (EHR) Evaluation Tool and to report the quantitative and qualitative results from the pilot.

METHODS

The Ambulatory EHR Evaluation Tool closely mirrors the inpatient version of the tool, which is administered by The Leapfrog Group. The tool was piloted with seven clinics in the United States, each using a different EHR. The tool consists of a medication safety test and a medication reconciliation module. For the medication test, clinics entered test patients and associated test orders into their EHR and recorded any decision support they received. An overall percentage score of unsafe orders detected, and order category scores were provided to clinics. For the medication reconciliation module, clinics demonstrated how their EHR electronically detected discrepancies between two medication lists.

RESULTS

For the medication safety test, the clinics correctly alerted on 54.6% of unsafe medication orders. Clinics scored highest in the drug allergy (100%) and drug-drug interaction (89.3%) categories. Lower scoring categories included drug age (39.3%) and therapeutic duplication (39.3%). None of the clinics alerted for the drug laboratory or drug monitoring orders. In the medication reconciliation module, three (42.8%) clinics had an EHR-based medication reconciliation function; however, only one of those clinics could demonstrate it during the pilot.

CONCLUSION

Clinics struggled in areas of advanced decision support such as drug age, drug laboratory, and drub monitoring. Most clinics did not have an EHR-based medication reconciliation function and this process was dependent on accessing patients' medication lists. Wider use of this tool could improve outpatient medication safety and can inform vendors about areas of improvement.

Developing an Integrated Electronic Medication Reconciliation Platform and Evaluating its Effects on Preventing Potential Duplicated Medications and Reducing 30-Day Medication-Related Hospital Revisits for Inpatients

The aims were to develop an integrated electronic medication reconciliation (ieMR) platform, evaluate its effects on preventing potential duplicated medications, analyze the distribution of the potential duplicated medications by the Anatomical Therapeutic and Chemical (ATC) code for all inpatients, and determine the rate of 30-day medication-related hospital revisits for a geriatric unit. The study was conducted in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan and involved a retrospective quasi pre-intervention (July 1-November 30, 2015) and post-intervention (October 1-December 31, 2016) study design. A multidisciplinary team developed the ieMR platform covering the process from admission to discharge. The ieMR platform included six modules of an enhanced computer physician order entry system (eCPOE), Pharmaceutical-care, Holistic Care, Bedside Display, Personalized Best Possible Medication Discharge Plan, and Pharmaceutical Care Registration System. The ieMR platform prevented the number of potential duplicated medications from pre (25,196 medications, 2.3%) to post (23,413 medications, 3.8%) phases (OR 1.71, 95% CI, 1.68-1.74; p < .001). The most common potential duplicated medications classified by the ATC codes were cardiovascular system (28.4%), alimentary tract and metabolism (26.4%), and nervous system (14.9%), and by chemical substances were sennoside (12.5%), amlodipine (7.5%), and alprazolam (7.4%). The rate of medication-related 30-day hospital revisits for the geriatric unit was significantly decreased in post-intervention compared with that in pre-intervention (OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.53; p < .01). This study indicated that the ieMR platform significantly prevented the number of potential duplicated medications for inpatients and reduced the rate of 30-day medication-related hospital revisits for the patients on the geriatric unit.

Incidence and Variables Associated With Inconsistencies in Opioid Prescribing at Hospital Discharge and Its Associated Adverse Drug Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Opioid-related medication errors (MEs) can have a significant impact on patient health and contribute to opioid misuse. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of and variables associated with the receipt of an opioid prescription and opioid-related MEs (omissions, duplications, or dose changes) at hospital discharge. We also determined rates of adverse drug events and risks of emergency department visits, readmissions, or death 30 days and 90 days post discharge associated with MEs.

METHODS

A cohort of hospitalized patients discharged from the McGill University Health Centre between 2014 and 2016 was assembled. The impact of opioid-related MEs was assessed in a propensity score-adjusted logistic regression models. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with MEs and discharge opioid prescription.

RESULTS

A total of 1530 (43.9%) of 3486 patients were prescribed opioids, of which 13.4% (n = 205) of patients had at least 1 opioid-related ME. Rates of MEs were higher in handwritten prescriptions compared to the electronic reconciliation discharge prescription group (20.6% vs 1.2%). Computer-based prescriptions were associated with a 69% lower risk of opioid-related MEs (adjusted odds ratio: 0.31, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.65) as well as 63% lower risk of receiving an opioid prescription. Opioid-related MEs were associated with a 2.3 times increased risk of healthcare utilization in the 30 days postdischarge period (adjusted odds ratio: 2.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-4.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid-related MEs are common in handwritten discharge prescriptions. Our findings highlight the need for computer-based prescribing platforms and careful review of medications during critical periods of care such as hospital transitions.

Persistence of Effect of Medication Review on Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Older Patients Following Hospital Discharge

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) can lead to adverse drug reactions and should be avoided whenever possible.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the PIP resumption rate 6 months after discharge from our geriatric unit and to compare it with data in the literature.

METHODS

This single-center observational study included patients aged ≥ 70 years with at least one PIP that had been stopped during hospitalization (according to Screening Tool for Older Persons Prescriptions [STOPP] and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment [START] criteria, version 2) between May 2018 and October 2018. We collected sociodemographic data, medication reconciliation data, and descriptive data during a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Each patient's medication history after discharge was determined in collaboration with their usual community pharmacist.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients (females 70%, mean age 87.1 years) were included. Data for the admission and discharge medication reconciliations were available for 44 patients (35%). On admission, 121 of the 125 patients (97%) were taking cardiovascular medication. Of the 336 treatments withdrawn, 61 (18.2%) had been re-prescribed at 6 months post-discharge-including half within the first month. The most frequent STOPP criterion was lack of indication (32%), and the overall PIP resumption rate was 22%. According to the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification, the main organ system affected by PIPs was the cardiovascular system (47%, with a resumption rate of 17%).

CONCLUSION

Our results highlighted a low PIP resumption rate at 6 months and showed that a collaborative medication review is associated with persistent medium-term medication changes.

Interventions to ensure medication safety in acute care: an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are one of the leading avoidable sources of harm to hospital patients. In hospitals, a range of interventions have been used to reduce the risk of errors at each of the points they may occur, such as prescription, dispensing and/or administration. Systematic reviews have been conducted on many of these interventions; however, it is difficult to compare the clinical utility of any of the separate interventions without the use of a rigorous umbrella review methodology.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesize the evidence from all systematic reviews investigating the effectiveness of medication safety interventions, in comparison to any or no comparator, for preventing medication errors, medication-related harms and death in acute care patients.

METHOD

The review considered quantitative systematic reviews with participants who were healthcare workers involved in prescribing, dispensing or administering medications. These healthcare workers were registered nurses, enrolled or licensed vocational nurses, midwives, pharmacists or medical doctors. Interventions of interest were those designed to prevent medication error in acute care settings. Eligible systematic reviews reported medication errors, medication-related harms and medication-related death as measured by error rates, numbers of adverse events and numbers of medication-related deaths. To qualify for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to provide a clearly articulated and comprehensive search strategy, and evidence of critical appraisal of the included studies using a standardized tool. Systematic reviews published in English since 2007 were included until present (March 2020). We searched a range of databases such MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library for potentially eligible reviews. Identified citations were screened by two reviewers working independently. Potentially eligible articles were retrieved and assessed against the inclusion criteria and those meeting the criteria were then critically appraised using the JBI SUMARI instrument for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews and research syntheses. A predetermined quality threshold was used to exclude studies based on their reported methods. Following critical appraisal, data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers using the relevant instrument in JBI SUMARI. Extracted findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tables to illustrate the reported outcomes for each intervention. The strength of the evidence for each intervention was indicated using 'traffic light' colors: green for effective interventions, amber for interventions with no evidence of an effect and red for interventions less effective than the comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. Most reviews did not report the number of participants in their included studies. Interventions targeted pharmacists, medical doctors, medical students and nurses, or were nonspecific about the participants. The majority of included reviews examined single interventions. All reviews were published and in English. Four interventions, medication administration education, medication reconciliation or review, specialist pharmacists' roles and physical or design modifications, reported effectiveness in reducing errors; however, heterogeneity between the included studies in these reviews was high.

CONCLUSION

For some interventions, there are strong indications of effectiveness in reducing medication errors in the inpatient setting. Government initiatives, policy makers and practitioners interested in improving medication safety are encouraged to adopt those interventions.

Repeat prescribing policy in New Zealand general practice: making it better

INTRODUCTION Repeat prescribing is common in New Zealand general practice. Research also suggests that repeat prescribing is a process prone to error. All New Zealand general practices have to comply with requirements to have a repeat prescribing policy, with the details of the policy to be designed by the practice. AIM To inform the development of practice policy, research was undertaken with experienced general practitioners to identify and mitigate risk in the process. METHODS At the 2019 annual conference of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, a workshop was held with 58 experienced general practitioner participants. The group was divided into six small groups, each with the task of discussing one aspect of the repeat prescribing process. The results were then discussed with the whole group and key discussion points were transcribed and analysed. RESULTS Issues identified included: improving patient education on appropriateness of repeat prescribing; having protected time for medicine reconciliation and the task of repeat prescribing; reducing the number of personnel and steps in the process; and clarity over responsibility for repeat prescribing. DISCUSSION This research can inform the local development of a repeat prescribing policy at the practice level or be used to critique existing practice policies. Attention was also drawn to the increasing administrative burden that repeat prescribing contributes to in general practice.

Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

To evaluate and summarize published evidence from systematic reviews examining medication reconciliation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for English-language systematic reviews published from January 2004 to March 2019. Reviewers independently extracted information and scored review quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. For reviews with AMSTAR scores above 7, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality, with evidence summarized and conclusions compared across reviews.

RESULTS

Eleven reviews met the inclusion criteria, 5 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Most systematic reviews included primary studies of comprehensive bundled interventions that featured medication reconciliation as a central component. Reviews largely focused on transitions into and out of hospital settings. Five reviews focused exclusively on pharmacist-led interventions. Of the 5 reviews that considered all types of medication discrepancies, 3 reviews found very low-quality evidence that interventions reduced medication discrepancies. Neither of the 2 reviews that examined clinically significant medication discrepancies found any intervention effect. Of the 5 reviews that examined healthcare utilization outcomes, only 1 found any intervention effect, and that finding was based on low- to very low-quality evidence. Four reviews considered clinical outcomes, but none found any intervention effect.

CONCLUSION

An overview of systematic reviews of medication reconciliation interventions found 9 high-quality systematic reviews. A minority of those reviews' conclusions were consistent with medication reconciliation alone having a measurable impact, and such conclusions were almost all based on very low-quality evidence.

A web application to involve patients in the medication reconciliation process: a user-centered usability and usefulness study

Objective

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) can improve patient safety by resolving medication discrepancies. Because information technology (IT) and patient engagement are promising approaches to optimizing MedRec, the SEAMPAT project aims to develop a MedRec IT platform based on two applications: the "patient app" and the "MedRec app." This study evaluates three dimensions of the usability (efficiency, satisfaction, and effectiveness) and usefulness of the patient app.

Methods

We performed a four-month user-centered observational study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Participants completed the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and a second questionnaire on usefulness. Effectiveness was assessed by measuring the completeness of the medication list generated by the patient application and its correctness (ie medication discrepancies between the patient list and the best possible medication history). Qualitative data were collected from semi-structured interviews, observations and comments, and questions raised by patients.

Results

Forty-two patients completed the study. Sixty-nine percent of patients considered the patient app to be acceptable (SUS Score ≥ 70) and usefulness was high. The medication list was complete for a quarter of the patients (7/28) and there was a discrepancy for 21.7% of medications (21/97). The qualitative data enabled the identification of several barriers (related to functional and non-functional aspects) to the optimization of usability and usefulness.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the importance and value of user-centered usability testing of a patient application implemented in "real-world" conditions. To achieve adoption and sustained use by patients, the app should meet patients' needs while also efficiently improving the quality of MedRec.

Prevalence of medication transfer errors in nephrology patients and potential risk factors

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation in transitions of care can prevent medication transfer errors (MTE). MTE can cause patient harm. Since performing medication reconciliation for every patient is not always feasible, identification of potential risk factors of MTE could aid in targeting this intervention to the right patients.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the proportion of patients with one or more MTE in the outpatient nephrology setting. Secondary patient characteristics associated with MTE, type and potential harm, and medication groups were investigated.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, between November 2017 and April 2018. The cohort involved patients in whom medication reconciliation was performed by a medical attendant using the electronic tool 'Medical Dashboard' prior to visiting the nephrologist. MTE were defined as unintended discrepancies between the medication in the hospital system and the result of the medication reconciliation. The proportion of patients with one or more MTE was calculated and the association of patient characteristics (age, sex, number of medications and kidney function (CKD-EPI)) with MTE was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 380 patients, 235 patients (61.8%) had at least one MTE. On average patients used 10.3 medications. The number of medications per patient was significantly associated with MTE; OR 1.11 (95%CI 1.05-1.16). No association was found for age, sex, and kidney function.

CONCLUSION

In ambulatory nephrology patients 61.8% had at least one MTE. Nephrology patients using a higher number of drugs are more prone to MTE.

Higher accuracy of complex medication reconciliation through improved design of electronic tools

Objective

Investigate the accuracy of 2 different medication reconciliation tools integrated into electronic health record systems (EHRs) using a cognitively demanding scenario and complex medication history.

Materials and Methods

Seventeen physicians reconciled medication lists for a polypharmacy patient using 2 EHRs in a simulation study. The lists contained 3 types of discrepancy and were transmitted between the systems via a Continuity of Care Document. Participants updated each EHR and their interactions were recorded and analyzed for the number and type of errors.

Results

Participants made 748 drug comparisons that resulted in 53 errors (93% accuracy): 12 using EHR2 (3% rate, 0-3 range) and 41 using EHR1 (11% rate, 0-9 range; P < .0001). Twelve clinicians made completely accurate reconciliations with EHR2 (71%) and 6 with EHR1 (35%). Most errors (28, 53%) occurred in medication entries containing discrepancies: 4 in EHR2 and 24 in EHR1 (P = .008). The order in which participants used the EHRs to complete the task did not affect the results.

Discussion

Significantly fewer errors were made with EHR2, which presented lists in a side-by-side view, automatically grouped medications by therapeutic class and more effectively identified duplicates. Participants favored this design and indicated that they routinely used several workarounds in EHR1.

Conclusion

Accurate assessment of the safety and effectiveness of electronic reconciliation tools requires rigorous testing and should prioritize complex rather than simpler tasks that are currently used for EHR certification and product demonstration. Higher accuracy of reconciliation is likely when tools are designed to better support cognitively demanding tasks.

The effectiveness of medication reconciliation to prevent medication error: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of medication reconciliation (MR) in low-middle-income countries, including Thailand, may differ from other developed countries.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of medication reconciliation (MR) on the reduction of medication error in Thailand.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Thai Journals Online, Thai index Medicus, Thai Medical Index, and Health Science Journal in Thailand from inception to January 2018. Studies that evaluated the effect of MR compared to usual care within hospitals in Thailand and reported the occurrence of medication error were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 107 articles retrieved, 7 articles involving 1581 patients were included in quantitative synthesis. Three of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, the risk of medication error in patients who received MR in all transitions of care was 75% lower than those receiving usual care (RR 0.25; 95%CI 0.15-0.43). The effect on the reduction of medication error appeared higher when MR was provided to ambulatory patients (RR 0.17 [95%CI 0.04-0.80] compared with hospitalized patients during admission (RR 0.37 [95%CI 0.20-0.65]) and discharge (RR 0.27 [95%CI 0.17-0.43]). Effects on reducing medication error was greater when MR was provided in secondary care hospitals compared with primary care hospitals both during admission (RR 0.49 [95%CI, 0.34-0.69] vs RR 0.25 [95%CI, 0.05-1.26]), and discharge transition (RR 0.19 [95%CI, 0.09-0.39] vs RR 0.30 [95%CI, 0.12-0.79]).

CONCLUSION

Overall, current evidence indicates that the provision of MR in Thailand is effective in reducing medication errors in all transitions of care. However, to promote patient safety, appropriate strategies should be developed to support MR in specific transition of care and hospital setting so patients can benefit most from this service.

Effect of an Electronic Medication Reconciliation Intervention on Adverse Drug Events: A Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

Adverse drug events (ADEs) account for up to 16% of emergency department (ED) visits and 7% of hospital admissions. Medication reconciliation is required for hospital accreditation because it can reduce medication discrepancies, but there is no evidence that reducing discrepancies reduces ADEs or other adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether electronic medication reconciliation reduces ADEs, medication discrepancies, and other adverse outcomes compared with usual care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized trial involved 3491 patients who were discharged from 2 medical units and 2 surgical units at the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between October 2014 and November 2016. Data analysis took place from July 2017 to July 2019.

INTERVENTION

The RightRx intervention electronically retrieved community drugs from the provincial insurer and aligned them with in-hospital drugs to facilitate reconciliation and communication at care transitions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was ADEs in 30 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included medication discrepancies, ED visits, hospital readmissions, and a composite outcome of ED visits, readmissions, and death up to 90 days after discharge.

RESULTS

Of 4656 eligible patients, 3567 (76.6%) consented to participate (2060 [57.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 69.8 [14.9] years). Overall, 76 patients died during the hospital stay, so 3491 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of ADEs between intervention and control groups (76 [4.6%] vs 73 [4.0%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.33-1.48), ED visits (433 [26.2%] vs 488 [26.6%]; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.36-1.42), hospital readmission (170 [10.3%] vs 261 [14.2%]; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-1.14), or the composite outcome (447 [27.0%] vs 506 [27.6%]; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.27) at 30 days. Medication discrepancies were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group (437 [26.4%] vs 1029 [56.0%]; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.57). Changes made to community medications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and new medications (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18) were significant risk factors for ADEs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Electronic medication reconciliation reduced medication discrepancies but did not reduce ADEs or other adverse outcomes. Hospital accreditation should focus on interventions that reduce the risk of adverse events for patients with multiple changes to community medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179867.

An urban medical system's exploratory study of medication errors

AIMS

This study sought to identify patterns of medication errors with respect to shifts, day of week, unit involved, severity, medication class and cause of errors and to propose possible solutions.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective explorative study using a database containing 605 medication events from two medical centres. Variables assessed include medication type, the error severity, and time the medication was ordered, the unit that the error occurred on and the day of the week of the errors.

METHODS

Simple percentages were used to report the results, and point-biserial correlation was employed to test for significant differences between the day and night shifts.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant findings when comparing event severity against the a.m. or p.m. shifts. The medication classes with the most errors were antibiotics, and the most common reason cited for errors was dose omission. The most commonly reported severity level was a 2 which requires increased patient monitoring.

A Prescription For Enhancing Electronic Prescribing Safety

While electronic prescribing has been shown to reduce medication errors and improve prescribing safety, it is vulnerable to error-prone processes. We review six intersecting areas in which changes to electronic prescribing systems, particularly in the outpatient setting, could transform medication ordering quality and safety. We recommend incorporating medication indications into electronic prescribing, establishing a single shared online medication list, implementing the transmission of electronic cancellation orders to pharmacies (CancelRx) to ensure that drugs are safely and reliably discontinued, implementing standardized structured and codified prescription instructions, reengineering clinical decision support, and redesigning electronic prescribing to facilitate the ordering of nondrug alternatives.

How to Prevent or Reduce Prescribing Errors: An Evidence Brief for Policy

- Preventing prescribing errors is critical to improving patient safety.- We developed an evidence brief for policy to identify effective interventions to avoid or reduce prescribing errors.- Four options were raised: promoting educational actions on prudent prescribing directed to prescribers; incorporating computerized alert systems into clinical practice; implementing the use of tools for guiding medication prescribing; and, encouraging patient care by a multidisciplinary team, with the participation of a pharmacist.- These options can be incorporated into health systems either alone or together, and for that, it is necessary that the context be considered.- Aiming to inform decision makers, we included considerations on the implementation of these options regarding upper-middle income countries, like the Brazilian, and we also present considerations regarding equity.

A User-Centered design and usability testing of a web-based medication reconciliation application integrated in an eHealth network

BACKGROUND

Medication discrepancies, which are a threat to patient safety, can be reduced by medication reconciliation (MedRec). MedRec is a complex process that can be supported by the use of information technology and patient engagement. Therefore, the SEAMPAT project aims to develop a MedRec IT platform based on two applications. The application for the professionals is called: the "MedRec app".

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we aimed to describe the development and usability testing of the MedRec app, reporting results of a three iterations user-centered usability evaluation.

METHODS

We used a three phase iterative user-centered study spread over 16 months. At each phase, the usability evaluation included several methods (observations, questionnaires, and follow-up discussions with participants) to collect quantitative and qualitative data in order to improve the current prototype and evolve to the next prototype.

RESULTS

In total, 48 healthcare professionals (25 general practitioners and 23 hospital clinicians) participated to the MedRec app evaluation. There were 14, 32 and 5 participants for phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively. At each phase, many design modifications were done to strengthen usability. Concerning usability, participants considered the prototypes as an acceptable interface with a median System Usability Score of 73 at phase 2 and 75 at phase 3. Participants emphasized the need for improvements concerning workflow integration, usefulness and interoperability.

CONCLUSION

The MedRec app was perceived as being useful, usable and satisfying. However, further improvements are required in several usability aspects. Our study demonstrates the importance of conducting usability assessments before investing time and resources in a large study evaluating the effect of an eMedRec approach on clinical outcomes. Our findings may also increase the chances of acceptability and sustained use over time by clinicians.

Medications and patient safety in the trauma setting: a systematic review

Background

Medication errors account for the most common adverse events and a significant cause of mortality in the USA. The Joint Commission has required medication reconciliation since 2006. We aimed to survey the literature and determine the challenges and effectiveness of medication reconciliation in the trauma patient population.

Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the effectiveness of medication reconciliation in trauma patients. English language articles were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review databases with search terms "trauma OR injury, AND medication reconciliation OR med rec OR med rek, AND effectiveness OR errors OR intervention OR improvements."

Results

The search resulted in 82 articles. After screening for relevance and duplicates, the 43 remaining were further reviewed, and only four articles, which presented results on medication reconciliation in 3041 trauma patients, were included. Two were retrospective and two were prospective. Two showed only 4% accuracy at time of admission with 48% of medication reconciliations having at least one medication discrepancy. There were major differences across the studies prohibiting comparative statistical analysis.

Conclusions

Trauma medication reconciliation is important because of the potential for adverse outcomes given the emergent nature of the illness. The few articles published at this time on medication reconciliation in trauma suggest poor accuracy. Numerous strategies have been implemented in general medicine to improve its accuracy, but these have not yet been studied in trauma. This topic is an important but unrecognized area of research in this field.

Automated E-mail Reminders Linked to Electronic Health Records to Improve Medication Reconciliation on Admission

Introduction:

Medication reconciliation can reduce medication discrepancies, errors, and patient harm. After a large academic hospital introduced a medication reconciliation software program, there was low compliance with electronic health record documentation of home medication reconciliation. This quality improvement project aimed to improve medication reconciliation on admission in 4 pediatric inpatient units by 50% over 3 months.

Methods:

We used Lean Sigma methodology to observe medication reconciliation processes; interview residents, nurses, pharmacists, and families; and perform swim lane process mapping and Ishikawa Cause and Effect analysis. The improvement plan included education and automated e-mails sent to admitting residents who had not completed medication reconciliation within 24 hours of admission. The daily percentage of patients without medication reconciliation within 24 hours of admission, indicated by the presence of old prescriptions in Sunrise Prescription Writer (RxWriter) (Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Chicago, Ill.) from prior admissions, was assessed from March 2015-June 2016. We constructed statistical process control charts and identified special causes.

Results:

Key barriers included lack of knowledge about RxWriter and lack of accountability for completing medication reconciliation. The percentage of patients without medication reconciliation decreased from 32% at baseline to 22% with education (P < 0.001), to 15% with the use of automated e-mail reminders (P < 0.001). We sustained improvement over the following year. Statistical process control testing indicated shifts aligning with each stage of the study.

Conclusion:

Provider-tailored, automated e-mail reminders linked to electronic health record with educational training significantly improved resident compliance with use of an electronic tool for documentation of home medication reconciliation on hospital admission.

Electronic medication reconciliation in hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is recognised as a multiprofessional process for the prevention of medication discrepancies. The goal of this study is to evaluate the available electronic medication reconciliation (eMedRec) tools and their effect on unintended discrepancies that occur in hospital institutions.

METHOD

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the ClinicalTrials.gov website and four other Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies starting from their inception through October 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using the nine standard criteria of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC) and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (three randomised controlled trials and 10 non-randomised controlled trials) were identified. Meta-analysis results demonstrated a reduced number of medications with unintended discrepancies (relative risk (RR)=1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55 to 2.21), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the number of patients with unintended medication discrepancies (RR=2.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 12.73). Common discrepancies included medication omission, dose discrepancy, and frequency discrepancy. We found that the clinical impact of medication discrepancy was mild. A total of 12 electronic tools were reported and were mostly integrated into the hospital's information system. However, the usability, user adherence, and user satisfaction were found to lack sufficient evidence.

CONCLUSION

eMedRec was shown to reduce the incidence of medication with unintended discrepancies and improve medication safety. However, the electronic tools are diversified and the effects on other outcomes still require a comprehensive evaluation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017067528.

Magnitude and factors associated with medication discrepancies identified through medication reconciliation at care transitions of a tertiary hospital in eastern Ethiopia

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine the magnitude of medication discrepancies and its associated factors at transitions in care of a Specialized University Hospital in eastern Ethiopia.

Results

This study enrolled 411 patients having at least one prescription medication. For each of the patient enrolled, a medication reconciliation process was accomplished between medication use history before transition and medication orders at the transition. A total of 1027 medications were reconciled and 298 of them showed discrepancies. From such medication discrepancies, 96 (32.2%) of them were unintended discrepancies. Patients admitted to surgical ward (adjusted odds ratio {AOR} 0.27 [95% confidence interval 0.10–0.74]) and on malnutrition therapy (AOR 0.13 [0.03–0.52]) had reduced likelihoods of medication discrepancies. However, patients on cardiovascular drug therapy (AOR 5.69 [2.4–13.62]) and who were hospitalized for more than 5 days (AOR 5.69 [2.97–10.9] {5–10 days}) had significantly increased likelihoods of discrepancies. Accordingly, one-third of the medication discrepancies identified were unintentional and these discrepancies were more likely to occur with cardiovascular drugs, in medical or pediatric wards and patients hospitalized for prolonged time. Therefore, this pharmacist-led medication reconciliation indicates the potential of pharmacists in reducing drug-related adverse health outcomes that arise from medication discrepancy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3668-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Electronic Pharmaceutical Record: A new method for medication reconciliation

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVE

There are several ways to establish an accurate medication list in the hospital admission medication reconciliation (MedRec). The challenge for MedRec lies in the availability, reliability, and completeness of the data used. In France, the Electronic Pharmaceutical Record (ePR) was developed to register each medication taken by ambulatory patients, primarily to make dispensation in community pharmacies safe. We evaluated the suitability of this tool in the MedRec when patients were admitted to the hospital.

METHOD

We conducted a 6-month pilot study of 249 MedRec files from a hospital diabetology department. The analysis was supplemented by the ePR for any patient for whom this information was recorded. The study evaluated the ePR as a new MedRec tool, as well as the clinical impact (CI) of the new data collected.

RESULTS

The ePR was contributory for 28% of the patients. Discrepancies were associated with polypharmacy, most of which had a CI = 1. Medication omission was the most frequently found discrepancy (72%), but self-medication (8%) and lack of medication adherence (9%) were also observed.

CONCLUSION

This tool provided added value for reconciliation, as it quickly identifies regular medications, adherence, and self-medication behaviour. The ePR is essential for conducting a thorough MedRec.