Use of information technology in medication reconciliation: a scoping review

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.

The Impact of an Electronic Medication Management System on Medication Deviations on Admission and Discharge from Hospital

Medication errors at transition of care remain a concerning issue. In recent times, the use of integrated electronic medication management systems (EMMS) has caused a reduction in medication errors, but its effectiveness in reducing medication deviations at transition of care has not been studied in hospital-wide settings in Australia. The aim of this study is to assess medication deviations, such as omissions and mismatches, pre-EMMS and post-EMMS implementation at transition of care across a hospital. In this study, patient records were reviewed retrospectively to identify medication deviations (medication omissions and medication mismatches) at admission and discharge from hospital. A total of 400 patient records were reviewed (200 patients in the pre-EMMS and 200 patients in the post-EMMS group). Out of 400 patients, 112 in the pre-EMMS group and 134 patients in post-EMMS group met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 105 out of 246 patients (42.7%) had any medication deviations on their medications. In the pre-EMMS group, 59 out of 112 (52.7%) patients had any deviations on their medications compared to 46 out of 134 patients (34.3%) from the post-EMMS group (p = 0.004). The proportion of patients with medication omitted from inpatient orders was 36.6% in the pre-EMMS cohort vs. 22.4% in the post-EMMS cohort (p = 0.014). Additionally, the proportion of patients with mismatches in medications on the inpatient charts compared to their medication history was 4.5% in the pre-EMMS group compared to 0% in the post-EMMS group (p = 0.019). Similarly, the proportion of patients with medications omitted from their discharge summary was 23.2% in the pre-EMMS group vs. 12.7% in the post-EMMS group (p = 0.03). Our study demonstrates a reduction in medication deviations after the implementation of the EMMS in hospital settings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Improving Primary Care Medication Processes by Using Shared Electronic Medication Plans in Switzerland: Lessons Learned From a Participatory Action Research Study

Background

Several countries have launched health information technology (HIT) systems for shared electronic medication plans. These systems enable patients and health care professionals to use and manage a common list of current medications across sectors and settings. Shared electronic medication plans have great potential to improve medication management and patient safety, but their integration into complex medication-related processes has proven difficult, and there is little scientific evidence to guide their implementation.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to summarize lessons learned from primary care professionals involved in a pioneering pilot project in Switzerland for the systemwide implementation of shared electronic medication plans. We collected experiences, assessed the influences of the local context, and analyzed underlying mechanisms influencing the implementation.

Methods

In this formative action research study, we followed 5 clusters of health care professionals during 6 months. The clusters represented rural and urban primary care settings. A total of 18 health care professionals (primary care physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) used the pilot version of a shared electronic medication plan on a secure web platform, the precursor of Switzerland’s electronic patient record infrastructure. We undertook 3 group interviews with each of the 5 clusters, analyzed the content longitudinally and across clusters, and summarized it into lessons learned.

Results

Participants considered medication plan management, digitalized or not, a core element of good clinical practice. Requirements for the successful implementation of a shared electronic medication plan were the integration into and simplification of clinical routines. Participants underlined the importance of an enabling setting with designated reference professionals and regular high-quality interactions with patients. Such a setting should foster trusting relationships and nurture a culture of safety and data privacy. For participants, the HIT was a necessary but insufficient building block toward better interprofessional communication, especially in transitions. Despite oral and written information, the availability of shared electronic medication plans did not generate spontaneous demand from patients or foster more engagement in their medication management. The variable settings illustrated the diversity of medication management and the need for local adaptations.

Conclusions

The results of our study present a unique and comprehensive description of the sociotechnical challenges of implementing shared electronic medication plans in primary care. The shared ownership among multiple stakeholders is a core challenge for implementers. No single stakeholder can build and maintain a safe, usable HIT system with up-to-date medication information. Buy-in from all involved health care professionals is necessary for consistent medication reconciliation along the entire care pathway. Implementers must balance the need to change clinical processes to achieve improvements with the need to integrate the shared electronic medication plan into existing routines to facilitate adoption. The lack of patient involvement warrants further study.

Effects of interorganisational information technology networks on patient safety: a realist synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Health services in many countries are investing in interorganisational networks, linking patients' records held in different organisations across a city or region. The aim of the systematic review was to establish how, why and in what circumstances these networks improve patient safety, fail to do so, or increase safety risks, for people living at home.

DESIGN

Realist synthesis, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative evidence, and including consultation with stakeholders in nominal groups and semistructured interviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The coordination of services for older people living at home, and medicine reconciliation for older patients returning home from hospital.

INFORMATION SOURCES

17 sources including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts.

OUTCOMES

Changes in patients' clinical risks.

RESULTS

We did not find any detailed accounts of the sequences of events that policymakers and others believe will lead from the deployment of interoperable networks to improved patient safety. We were, though, able to identify a substantial number of theory fragments, and these were used to develop programme theories.There is good evidence that there are problems with the coordination of services in general, and the reconciliation of medication lists in particular, and it indicates that most problems are social and organisational in nature. There is also good evidence that doctors and other professionals find interoperable networks difficult to use. There was limited high-quality evidence about safety-related outcomes associated with the deployment of interoperable networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical evidence does not currently justify claims about the beneficial effects of interoperable networks on patient safety. There appears to be a mismatch between technology-driven assumptions about the effects of networks and the sociotechnical nature of coordination problems.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017073004.

The effects of interoperable information technology networks on patient safety: a realist synthesis

Background

Interoperable networks connect information technology systems of different organisations, allowing professionals in one organisation to access patient data held in another one. Health policy-makers in many countries believe that they will improve the co-ordination of services and, hence, the quality of services and patient safety. To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any previous systematic reviews of the effects of these networks on patient safety.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to establish how, why and in what circumstances interoperable information technology networks improved patient safety, failed to do so or increased safety risks. The objectives of the study were to (1) identify programme theories and prioritise theories to review; (2) search systematically for evidence to test the theories; (3) undertake quality appraisal, and use included texts to support, refine or reject programme theories; (4) synthesise the findings; and (5) disseminate the findings to a range of audiences.

Design

Realist synthesis, including consultation with stakeholders in nominal groups and semistructured interviews.

Settings and participants

Following a stakeholder prioritisation process, several domains were reviewed: older people living at home requiring co-ordinated care, at-risk children living at home and medicines reconciliation services for any patients living at home. The effects of networks on services in health economies were also investigated.

Intervention

An interoperable network that linked at least two organisations, including a maximum of one hospital, in a city or region.

Outcomes

Increase, reduction or no change in patients’ risks, such as a change in the risk of taking an inappropriate medication.

Results

We did not find any detailed accounts of the ways in which interoperable networks are intended to work and improve patient safety. Theory fragments were identified and used to develop programme and mid-range theories. There is good evidence that there are problems with the co-ordination of services in each of the domains studied. The implicit hypothesis about interoperable networks is that they help to solve co-ordination problems, but evidence across the domains showed that professionals found interoperable networks difficult to use. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of interoperable networks to allow us to establish how and why they affect patient safety.

Limitations

The lack of evidence about patient-specific measures of effectiveness meant that we were not able to determine ‘what works’, nor any variations in what works, when interoperable networks are deployed and used by health and social care professionals.

Conclusions

There is a dearth of evidence about the effects of interoperable networks on patient safety. It is not clear if the networks are associated with safer treatment and care, have no effects or increase clinical risks.

Future work

Possible future research includes primary studies of the effectiveness of interoperable networks, of economies of scope and scale and, more generally, on the value of information infrastructures.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017073004.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management

BACKGROUND

A well-functioning routine health information system (RHIS) can provide the information needed for health system management, for governance, accountability, planning, policy making, surveillance and quality improvement, but poor information support has been identified as a major obstacle for improving health system management.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions to improve routine health information systems in terms of RHIS performance, and also, in terms of improved health system management performance, and improved patient and population health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid in May 2019. We searched Global Health, Ovid and PsycInfo in April 2016. In January 2020 we searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and in OpenGrey, and for ongoing trials using the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. In October 2019 we also did a cited reference search using Web of Science, and a 'similar articles' search in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and time-series studies comparing routine health information system interventions, with controls, in primary, hospital or community health care settings. Participants included clinical staff and management, district management and community health workers using routine information systems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed records to identify studies for inclusion, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Interventions and outcomes were too varied across studies to allow for pooled risk analysis. We present a 'Summary of findings' table for each intervention comparisons broadly categorised into Technical and Organisational (or a combination), and report outcomes on data quality and service quality. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies: four cluster randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies, from Africa and South America. Three studies evaluated technical interventions, one study evaluated an organisational intervention, and two studies evaluated a combination of technical and organisational interventions. Four studies reported on data quality and six studies reported on service quality. In terms of data quality, a web-based electronic TB laboratory information system probably reduces the length of time to reporting of TB test results, and probably reduces the overall rate of recording errors of TB test results, compared to a paper-based system (moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of the electronic laboratory information system on the recording rate of serious (misidentification) errors for TB test results compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). Misidentification errors are inaccuracies in transferring test results between an electronic register and patients' clinical charts. We are also uncertain about the effect of the intervention on service quality (timeliness of starting or changing a patient's TB treatment) (very low certainty evidence). A hand-held electronic device probably improves the length of time to report TB test results, and probably reduces the total frequency of recording errors in TB test results between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record system, compared to a paper-based system (moderate-certainty evidence). We are, however, uncertain about the effect of the intervention on the frequency of serious (misidentification) errors in recording between the laboratory notebook and the electronic information record, compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of a hospital electronic health information system on service quality (length of time outpatients spend at hospital, length of hospital stay, and hospital revenue collection), compared to a paper-based system (very low certainty evidence). High-intensity brief text messaging (SMS) may make little or no difference to data quality (in terms of completeness of documentation of pregnancy outcomes), compared to low-intensity brief text messaging (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of electronic drug stock notification (with either data management support or product transfer support) on service quality (in terms of transporting stock and stock levels), compared to paper-based stock notification (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of health information strengthening (where it is part of comprehensive service quality improvement intervention) on service quality (health worker motivation, receipt of training by health workers, health information index scores, quality of clinical observation of children and adults) (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review indicates mixed effects of mainly technical interventions to improve data quality, with gaps in evidence on interventions aimed at enhancing data-informed health system management. There is a gap in interventions studying information support beyond clinical management, such as for human resources, finances, drug supply and governance. We need to have a better understanding of the causal mechanisms by which information support may affect change in management decision-making, to inform robust intervention design and evaluation methods.

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.

An On-Treatment Analysis of the MARQUIS Study: Interventions to Improve Inpatient Medication Reconciliation

It is unclear which medication reconciliation interventions are most effective at reducing inpatient medication discrepancies. Five United States hospitals' interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) teams were virtually mentored by QI-trained physicians. Sites implemented one to seven evidence-based interventions in 791 patients during the 25-month implementation period. Three interventions were associated with significant decreases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: (1) defining clinical roles and responsibilities, (2) training, and (3) hiring staff to perform discharge medication reconciliation. Two interventions were associated with significant increases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: training staff to take medication histories and implementing a new electronic health record (EHR). Hospitals should focus first on hiring and training pharmacy staff to assist with medication reconciliation at discharge and delineating roles and responsibilities of clinical staff. We caution hospitals implementing a large vendor EHR, as medication discrepancies may increase. Finally, the effect of medication history training on discrepancies needs further study.

Medication reconciliation: time to save? A cross-sectional study from one acute hospital

PURPOSE

Medication errors during transitional care are an important patient safety issue. Medication reconciliation is an established intervention to reduce such errors. Current evidence has not demonstrated an associated reduction in healthcare costs, however, with complexity and resource intensity being identified as issues. The aims of this study were to examine an existing process of medication reconciliation in terms of time taken, to identify factors associated with additional time, and to determine if additional time is associated with detecting errors of clinical significance.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. Issues arising during medication reconciliation incurring a time burden additional to the usual process were logged and quantified by pharmacists. Regression analyses investigated associations between patient characteristics and clinically significant errors and additional time. Cost for additional time in terms of hospital pharmacist salary was calculated.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were included. Having a personal record of medication at admission (OR 3.30, 95% CI: (1.05 to 10.42), p = 0.004) was a significant predictor of additional time. No significant associations were found between the occurrence of clinically significant error and additional time (p > 0.05). The most common reason for additional time was clarifying issues pertaining to primary care medication information. Projected annual 5-year costs for the mean additional time of 3.75 min were €1.8-1.9 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Spending additional time on medication reconciliation is associated with economic burden and may not yield benefit in terms of capturing clinically significant errors. There is a need to improve communication of medication information between primary and secondary care.

Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care

BACKGROUND

Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.

Effects of a multifaceted medication reconciliation quality improvement intervention on patient safety: final results of the MARQUIS study

BACKGROUND

Unintentional discrepancies across care settings are a common form of medication error and can contribute to patient harm. Medication reconciliation can reduce discrepancies; however, effective implementation in real-world settings is challenging.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic quality improvement (QI) study at five US hospitals, two of which included concurrent controls. The intervention consisted of local implementation of medication reconciliation best practices, utilising an evidence-based toolkit with 11 intervention components. Trained QI mentors conducted monthly site phone calls and two site visits during the intervention, which lasted from December 2011 through June 2014. The primary outcome was number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient; secondary outcome was total discrepancies regardless of potential for harm. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Across five sites, 1648 patients were sampled: 613 during baseline and 1035 during the implementation period. Overall, potentially harmful discrepancies did not decrease over time beyond baseline temporal trends, adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.97 per month (95% CI 0.86 to 1.08), p=0.53. The intervention was associated with a reduction in total medication discrepancies, IRR 0.92 per month (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97), p=0.002. Of the four sites that implemented interventions, three had reductions in potentially harmful discrepancies. The fourth site, which implemented interventions and installed a new electronic health record (EHR), saw an increase in discrepancies, as did the fifth site, which did not implement any interventions but also installed a new EHR.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentored implementation of a multifaceted medication reconciliation QI initiative was associated with a reduction in total, but not potentially harmful, medication discrepancies. The effect of EHR implementation on medication discrepancies warrants further study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01337063.

Usage and accuracy of medication data from nationwide health information exchange in Quebec, Canada

Objective

(1) To describe the usage of medication data from the Health Information Exchange (HIE) at the health care system level in the province of Quebec; (2) To assess the accuracy of the medication list obtained from the HIE.

Methods

A descriptive study was conducted utilizing usage data obtained from the Ministry of Health at the individual provider level from January 1 to December 31, 2015. Usage patterns by role, type of site, and tool used to access the HIE were investigated. The list of medications of 111 high risk patients arriving at the emergency department of an academic healthcare center was obtained from the HIE and compared with the list obtained through the medication reconciliation process.

Results

There were 31 022 distinct users accessing the HIE 11 085 653 times in 2015. The vast majority of pharmacists and general practitioners accessed it, compared to a minority of specialists and nurses. The top 1% of users was responsible of 19% of access. Also, 63% of the access was made using the Viewer application, while using a certified electronic medical record application seemed to facilitate usage. Among 111 patients, 71 (64%) had at least one discrepancy between the medication list obtained from the HIE and the reference list.

Conclusions

Early adopters were mostly in primary care settings, and were accessing it more frequently when using a certified electronic medical record. Further work is needed to investigate how to resolve accuracy issues with the medication list and how certain tools provide different features.

Evaluation of Multimedia Medication Reconciliation Software: A Randomized Controlled, Single-Blind Trial to Measure Diagnostic Accuracy for Discrepancy Detection

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System developed a medication history collection software that displays prescription names and medication images.

OBJECTIVE

This article measures the frequency of medication discrepancy reporting using the medication history collection software and compares with the frequency of reporting using a paper-based process. This article also determines the accuracy of each method by comparing both strategies to a best possible medication history.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, single-blind trial.

SETTING

Three community-based primary care clinics associated with the Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System: a 300-bed teaching facility and ambulatory care network serving Veteran soldiers in the Pacific Northwest United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 212 patients with primary care appointments, 209 patients fulfilled the study requirements.

INTERVENTION

Patients randomized to a software-directed medication history or a paper-based medication history. Randomization and allocation to treatment groups were performed using a computer-based random number generator. Assignments were placed in a sealed envelope and opened after participant consent. The research coordinator did not know or have access to the treatment assignment until the time of presentation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary analysis compared the discrepancy detection rates between groups with respect to the health record and a best possible medication history.

RESULTS

Of 3,500 medications reviewed, we detected 1,435 discrepancies. Forty-six percent of those discrepancies were potentially high risk for causing an adverse drug event. There was no difference in detection rates between treatment arms. Software sensitivity was 83% and specificity was 91%; paper sensitivity was 81% and specificity was 94%. No participants were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The medication history collection software is an efficient and scalable method for gathering a medication history and detecting high-risk discrepancies. Although it included medication images, the technology did not improve accuracy over a paper list when compared with a best possible medication history.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02135731.

The medication reconciliation process and classification of discrepancies: a systematic review

AIMS

Medication reconciliation is a part of the medication management process and facilitates improved patient safety during care transitions. The aims of the study were to evaluate how medication reconciliation has been conducted and how medication discrepancies have been classified.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Web of Science (WOS), in accordance with the PRISMA statement up to April 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the types of medication discrepancy found through the medication reconciliation process and contained a classification system for discrepancies. Data were extracted by one author based on a predefined table, and 10% of included studies were verified by two authors.

RESULTS

Ninety-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately one-third of included studies (n = 35, 36.8%) utilized a 'gold' standard medication list. The majority of studies (n = 57, 60%) used an empirical classification system and the number of classification terms ranged from 2 to 50 terms. Whilst we identified three taxonomies, only eight studies utilized these tools to categorize discrepancies, and 11.6% of included studies used different patient safety related terms rather than discrepancy to describe the disagreement between the medication lists.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that clear and consistent information on prevalence, types, causes and contributory factors of medication discrepancy are required to develop suitable strategies to reduce the risk of adverse consequences on patient safety. Therefore, to obtain that information, we need a well-designed taxonomy to be able to accurately measure, report and classify medication discrepancies in clinical practice.

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

Background

Medication reconciliation has been identified as an important intervention to minimize the incidence of unintentional medication discrepancies at transitions in care. However, there is a lack of evidence for the impact of information technology on the rate and incidence of medication discrepancies identified during care transitions. This systematic review was thus, aimed to evaluate the impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on the occurrence of medication discrepancies at hospital transitions.

Methods

Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, and EMBASE from inception to November, 2015. We included published studies in English that evaluated the effect of information technology on the incidence and rate of medication discrepancies compared with usual care. Cochrane’s tools were used for assessment of the quality of included studies. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models.

Results

Ten studies met our inclusion criteria; of which only one was a randomized controlled trial. Interventions were carried out at various hospital transitions (admission, 5; discharge, 2 and multiple transitions, 3 studies). Meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of 45 % in the proportion of medications with unintentional discrepancies after the use of electronic medication reconciliation (RR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.51 to 0.58). However, there was no significant reduction in either the proportion of patients with medication discrepancies or the mean number of discrepancies per patient. Drug omissions were the most common types of unintended discrepancies, and with an electronic tool a significant but heterogeneously distributed reduction of omission errors over the total number of medications reconciled have been observed (RR 0.20; 95 % CI 0.06 to 0.66). The clinical impact of unintended discrepancies was evaluated in five studies, and there was no potentially fatal error identified and most errors were minor in severity.

Conclusion

Medication reconciliation supported by an electronic tool was able to minimize the incidence of medications with unintended discrepancy, mainly drug omissions. But, this did not consistently reduce other process outcomes, although there was a lack of rigorous design to conform these results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0353-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful development and implementation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, and identified additional reports from reference lists, reviews, and patent databases. Reports were included if the electronic tool supported medication history taking and the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. Two researchers independently selected studies, evaluated the quality of reporting, and extracted data.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports relative to 11 tools were included. There were eight quality improvement projects, five observational effectiveness studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT protocols (ie, descriptions of RCTs in progress), and two patents. All tools were developed in academic environments in North America. Most used electronic data from multiple sources and partially implemented functionalities considered to be important. Relevant information on functionalities and implementation features was frequently missing. Evaluations mainly focused on usability, adherence, and user satisfaction. One RCT evaluated the effect on potential adverse drug events.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation of electronic tools to support MedRec requires favorable context, properly designed tools, and attention to implementation features. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of these tools on the quality and safety of healthcare.

The pharmacist and the EHR

The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) across the United States has impacted the methods by which health care professionals care for their patients. It is not always recognized, however, that pharmacists also actively use advanced functionality within the EHR. As critical members of the health care team, pharmacists utilize many different features of the EHR. The literature focuses on 3 main roles: documentation, medication reconciliation, and patient evaluation and monitoring. As health information technology proliferates, it is imperative that pharmacists' workflow and information needs are met within the EHR to optimize medication therapy quality, team communication, and patient outcomes.

Design of admission medication reconciliation technology: a human factors approach to requirements and prototyping

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to (1) develop an in-depth understanding of the workflow and information flow in medication reconciliation, and (2) design medication reconciliation support technology using a combination of rapid-cycle prototyping and human-centered design.

BACKGROUND

Although medication reconciliation is a national patient safety goal, limitations both of physical environment and in workflow can make it challenging to implement durable systems. We used several human factors techniques to gather requirements and develop a new process to collect a medication history at hospital admission.

METHODS

We completed an ethnography and time and motion analysis of pharmacists in order to illustrate the processes used to reconcile medications. We then used the requirements to design prototype multimedia software for collecting a bedside medication history. We observed how pharmacists incorporated the technology into their physical environment and documented usability issues.

RESULTS

Admissions occurred in three phases: (1) list compilation, (2) order processing, and (3) team coordination. Current medication reconciliation processes at the hospital average 19 minutes to complete and do not include a bedside interview. Use of our technology during a bedside interview required an average of 29 minutes. The software represents a viable proof-of-concept to automate parts of history collection and enhance patient communication. However, we discovered several usability issues that require attention.

CONCLUSIONS

We designed a patient-centered technology to enhance how clinicians collect a patient's medication history. By using multiple human factors methods, our research team identified system themes and design constraints that influence the quality of the medication reconciliation process and implementation effectiveness of new technology.

KEYWORDS

Evidence-based design, human factors, patient-centered care, safety, technology.

GPs' and community pharmacists' opinions on medication management at transitions of care in Ireland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to survey GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) in Ireland regarding current practices of medication management, specifically medication reconciliation, communication between health care providers and medication errors as patients transition in care.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to 2364 GPs, 311 GP Registrars and 2382 CPs. Multivariable associations comparing GPs to CPs were generated and content analysis of free text responses was undertaken.

RESULTS

There was an overall response rate of 17.7% (897 respondents-554 GPs/Registrars and 343 CPs). More than 90% of GPs and CPs were positive about the effects of medication reconciliation on medication safety and adherence. Sixty per cent of GPs reported having no formal system of medication reconciliation. Communication between GPs and CPs was identified as good/very good by >90% of GPs and CPs. The majority (>80%) of both groups could clearly recall prescribing errors, following a transition of care, they had witnessed in the previous 6 months. Free text content analysis corroborated the positive relationship between GPs and CPs, a frustration with secondary care communication, with many examples given of prescribing errors.

CONCLUSIONS

While there is enthusiasm for the benefits of medication reconciliation there are limited formal structures in primary care to support it. Challenges in relation to systems that support inter-professional communication and reduce medication errors are features of the primary/secondary care transition. There is a need for an improved medication management system. Future research should focus on the identified barriers in implementing medication reconciliation and systems that can improve it.

Primary Care Provider Perspectives on Electronic Medication Refill History

Improvements in health information technology have made aggregate multipayer pharmacy claims data increasingly available through the electronic health record (EHR). The objective of this study was to assess the current awareness, utilization, and impact of pharmacy history data available in the EHR on primary care provider (PCP) decision making. A 14-question survey was distributed to all PCPs in a large medical practice. Of the 55/72 responding PCPs, 47 (85.5%) were aware of the EHR medication history function, and 36 (65.5%) had used it previously. Respondents indicated the medication history could be most useful when considering prescribing a narcotic (33/36, 92%) and when addressing nonadherence concerns (28/35, 80%). Barriers included delays in data loading and the time pressures of clinical practice. Access to aggregate multipayer pharmacy history data has the potential to affect medication reconciliation, yet future implementation should focus on making these data complete and easily available in routine practice.

Preventing medication errors in transitions of care: A patient case approach

OBJECTIVE

To discuss common causes of medication errors occurring upon transitions of care and review key interventions that should be implemented to ensure effective communication and accurate completion of medication reconciliation.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014) using MeSH terms medication errors, medication reconciliation, and nursing homes in addition to conventional text words, including transitions of care and medication safety; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Network using search terms transitions of care, medication errors, and medication reconciliation; and relevant websites of national organizations pertaining to transitions of care and medication reconciliation.

STUDY SELECTION

Limited to English-language journals with no limitation set on the year of publication for clinical trials, meta-analyses, and reviews.

DATA EXTRACTION

At the authors' discretion, preference was given to references focusing on pharmacists' role in transitions of care and medication reconciliation.

RESULTS

Most medication errors stem from a lack of effective communication between health care providers during transitions of care. Part of successful communication and correct patient hand-off is completing accurate medication reconciliation. A patient case highlights a life-threatening medication error that occurred during a transition of care due to ineffective communication between a pharmacist and nurse while transferring medication information.

CONCLUSION

To provide patients with accurate medication information, pharmacists should perform medication reconciliation upon transitions of care using The Joint Commission's five-step process. Pharmacists can conduct numerous interventions to prevent medication errors during transitions of care and ensure patient safety. Pharmacists are integral to evaluating the appropriateness of medication use, ensuring information is updated in the health record, and verbally communicating accurate information to other health professionals.

Challenges to the implementation of a nationwide electronic prescribing network in primary care: a qualitative study of users' perceptions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify physicians' and pharmacists' perceptions of the challenges and benefits to implementing a nationwide electronic prescribing network linking medical clinics and community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada.

METHODS

Forty-nine people (12 general practitioners, 2 managers, 33 community pharmacists, and 2 pharmacy staff members) from 40 points of care (10 primary care clinics (42% of all the connected sites) and 30 community pharmacies (44%)) were interviewed in 2013. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A low level of network use was observed. Most pharmacists processed e-prescriptions by manual entry instead of importing electronically. They reported concerns about potential errors generated by importing e-prescriptions, mainly due to the instruction field. Paper prescriptions were still perceived as the best means for safe and effective processing of prescriptions in pharmacies. Speed issues when validating e-prescription messages were seen as an irritant by physicians, and resulted in several of them abandoning transmission. Displaying the medications based on the dispensing data was identified as the main obstacle to meaningful use of medication histories.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous challenges impeded realization of the benefits of this network. Standards for e-prescription messages, as well as rules for message validation, need to be improved to increase the potential benefits of e-prescriptions. Standard drug terminology including the concept of clinical medication should be developed, and the implementation of rules in local applications to allow for the classification and reconciliation of medication lists from dispensing data should be made a priority.

Impact of admission medication reconciliation performed by clinical pharmacists on medication safety

BACKGROUND

Many activities contribute to reduce drug-related problems. Among them, the medication reconciliation (MR) is used to compare the best possible medication history (BPMH) and the current admission medication order (AMO) to identify and solve unintended medication discrepancies (UMD). This study aims to assess the impact of the implementation of admission MR by clinical pharmacists on UMD.

METHOD

This prospective study was carried out in two units of general medicine and infectious and tropical diseases in a 1844-bed French hospital. A retroactive MR performed in an observational period was compared to a proactive MR realized in an interventional period. We used a logistic regression to identify risk factors of UMD.

RESULTS

During both periods, 394 patients were enrolled and 2,725 medications were analyzed in the BPMH. Proactive MR reduced the percentage of patients with at least one UMD compared with retroactive process (respectively 2.1% vs. 45.8%, p<0.001). Patients with at least one UMD during both periods were older compared to patients without UMD (79 vs. 72, p<0.005) and had more medications at admission (7 vs. 6, p<0.0001). UMD occur 38 times more often when there is no clinical pharmacist intervention. Among the 226 UMD detected in both periods, 42% would have required monitoring or intervention to preclude harm, and 10% had potential harm to the patient and 2% were life threatening.

CONCLUSION

Proactive MR performed by clinical pharmacists is an acute process of detection and correction of UMD, but it requires a lot of human resources.

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

Background

The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

Results

The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).

Conclusions

Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Medication discrepancies despite pharmacist led medication reconciliation: the challenges of maintaining an accurate medication list in primary care

Objective

Describe the types of medication discrepancies that persist despite pharmacist-led medication reconciliation using the primary care electronic medical record (EMR).

Methods

Observational case series study of established patients from an urban, indigent care clinic. Medication reconciliation was conducted immediately prior to the physician visit at baseline and return visit. Main outcome measures included: frequency, types, and reasons for discrepancies, patient knowledge, and adherence.

Results

There was a 14.5% reduction in the number of patients with a discrepancy and the frequency of discrepancies was reduced by 7.3%. The rate of medication discrepancies in the chart was reduced by 31.3%. The most common type of discrepancy that persisted at follow up were medications listed on the chart that the patient stopped taking. Discrepancies were more likely to persist in Caucasian subjects when compared to African Americans.

Conclusions

While pharmacist led medication reconciliation appears effective at reducing the likelihood of a medication discrepancy in the EMR, challenges persist in maintaining this accuracy specifically as it relates to patient driven changes to the medication regimen.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Medication reconciliation: passing phase or real need?

Medication reconciliation errors occur across transitions in patient care. Of all medication errors in a hospital, 25 % in hospitalised patients are caused by a failure to reconcile new prescriptions with ongoing home treatments. These errors are more common at discharge, but the critical moment for detecting and resolving them is at the time of admission. This commentary reviews the different ways in which reconciliation errors can be prevented. The reconciliation process should be standardised and implemented in daily practice as a routine part of healthcare provision. To achieve this, professional development of hospital pharmacists is of paramount importance. The commentary goes on to describe the factors that affect the reconciliation process and the stages involved in its implementation. Finally, we discuss the use of information technology as a means to help integrating medication reconciliation into clinical practice.

Discrepancies in Medication Information for the Primary Care Physician and the Geriatric Patient at Discharge

BACKGROUND:

Medication discrepancies in discharge medication lists can lead to medication errors and adverse drug events following discharge.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the incidence and type of discrepancies between the discharge letter for the primary care physician and the patient discharge medication list as well as identify possible patient-related determinants for experiencing discrepancies.

METHODS:

A retrospective, single-center, cohort study of patients discharged from the acute geriatric department of a Belgian university hospital between September 2009 and April 2010 was performed. Medications listed in the discharge letter for the primary care physician were compared with those in the patient discharge medication list. Based on the clinical pharmacist–acquired medication list at hospital admission and the medications administered during hospitalization, we determined for every discrepancy whether the medication listed in the discharge letter or the patient discharge medication list was correct.

RESULTS:

One hundred eighty-nine discharged patients (mean [SD] age 83.9 [5.7] years, 64.0% female) were included in the study. Almost half of these patients (90; 47.6%) had 1 or more discrepancies in medication information at discharge. The discharge letters were often more complete and accurate than the patient discharge medication lists. The most common discrepancies were omission of a brand name in the patient discharge medication list and omission of a drug in the discharge letter. Increasing numbers of drugs in the discharge medication list (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; p = 0.001) and discharge letter (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32; p = 0.001) were associated with a higher risk for discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Discrepancies between the patient discharge medication list and the medication information in the discharge letter for the primary care physician occur frequently. This may be an important source of medication errors, as confusion and uncertainty about the correct discharge medications can originate from these discrepancies. Increasing numbers of drugs involve a higher risk for discrepancies. Medication reconciliation between both lists is warranted to avoid medication errors.

Developing a programme for medication reconciliation at the time of admission into hospital

The aim of this article is to describe the methods used to develop the medication reconciliation programme implemented in a tertiary care hospital, and to discuss the main problems encountered and lessons learned during the process. A quasi-experimental study was carried out, analysing discrepancies between routine medication and drugs prescribed in the hospital, before and after an electronic reconciliation tool was introduced at admission. This tool was integrated into the computerized provider order entry system. The implementation of the electronic reconciliation tool has shown a reduction of the rate of discrepancies, decreasing from 7.24% (CI 95% 6.0-8.5) before the intervention to 4.18% (CI 95% 3.2-5.1) afterwards. Projects like this are costly, but this study has made it possible to detect numerous areas where interventions could be useful and proved the importance of a medication reconciliation programme.

Assessing accuracy of an electronic provincial medication repository

Background

Jurisdictional drug information systems are being implemented in many regions around the world. British Columbia, Canada has had a provincial medication dispensing record, PharmaNet, system since 1995. Little is known about how accurately PharmaNet reflects actual medication usage.

Methods

This prospective, multi-centre study compared pharmacist collected Best Possible Medication Histories (BPMH) to PharmaNet profiles to assess accuracy of the PharmaNet profiles for patients receiving a BPMH as part of clinical care. A review panel examined the anonymized BPMHs and discrepancies to estimate clinical significance of discrepancies.

Results

16% of medication profiles were accurate, with 48% of the discrepant profiles considered potentially clinically significant by the clinical review panel. Cardiac medications tended to be more accurate (e.g. ramipril was accurate >90% of the time), while insulin, warfarin, salbutamol and pain relief medications were often inaccurate (80–85% of the time). 1215 sequential BPMHs were collected and reviewed for this study.

Conclusions

The PharmaNet medication repository has a low accuracy and should be used in conjunction with other sources for medication histories for clinical or research purposes. This finding is consistent with other, smaller medication repository accuracy studies in other jurisdictions. Our study highlights specific medications that tend to be lower in accuracy.

Identifying discrepancies in electronic medical records through pharmacist medication reconciliation

OBJECTIVES

To describe the types and causes of medication discrepancies in the electronic medical record identified by pharmacist medication reconciliation during outpatient medical visits and to identify patient characteristics associated with the presence of discrepancies.

DESIGN

Observational case series study.

SETTING

Indigent primary care clinic in Pittsburgh, PA, from April 2009 to May 2010.

PATIENTS

219 adults presenting for follow-up medical visits and self-reporting medication use.

INTERVENTION

Medication reconciliation as part of patient interview and concurrent chart review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency, types, and reasons for medication discrepancies and demographic variables, patient knowledge, and adherence.

RESULTS

Of 219 patients interviewed, 162 (74%) had at least one discrepancy. The most common type of discrepancy was an incorrect medication documented on the chart. The most common reasons included over-the-counter (OTC) use of medications and patients not reporting use of medications. The presence of one or more medication discrepancies was associated with the use of three or more medications. Patient factors such as gender, age, and race were not associated with discrepancies. Patients able to recall the strength for more than 75% of their medications had fewer discrepancies, while knowledge of the medication name, indication, or regimen had no association with discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists play a critical role in identifying discrepancies between charted medication lists and self-reported medication use, independent of adherence. Inaccuracies in charted medications are frequent and often are related to use of OTC therapies and lack of communication and documentation during physician office visits. Knowledge of patient-related variables and other reasons for discrepancies may be useful in identifying patients at greatest risk for discrepancies and interventions to prevent and resolve them.

Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on Medication Discrepancies During Hospitalization and at Discharge for Geriatric Patients

Background:

Medication discrepancies have the potential to cause harm. Medication reconciliation by clinical pharmacists aims to prevent discrepancies and other drug-related problems.

Objective:

To determine how often discrepancies in the physician-acquired medication history result in discrepancies during hospitalization and at discharge. Secondary objectives were to determine the influence of clinical pharmacists’ interventions on discrepancies and to investigate possible patient-related determinants for experiencing discrepancies.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort study of patients who were admitted to the acute geriatric department of a Belgian university hospital and followed up by clinical pharmacists between September 2009 and April 2010. Patients were limited to those 65 years or older who were taking 1 or more prescription drug. Medication reconciliation at admission, during hospitalization, and at discharge was conducted by an independent pharmacist who gathered information via chart reviews.

Results:

The reconciliation process at admission identified 681 discrepancies in 199 patients. Approximately 81.9% (163) of patients had at least 1 discrepancy in the physician-acquired medication history. The clinical pharmacists performed 386 interventions, which were accepted in 279 cases (72.3%). A quarter of the medication history discrepancies (165; 24.2%) resulted in discrepancies during hospitalization, mostly because the intervention was not accepted. At discharge, 278 medication history discrepancies (40.8%) resulted in discrepancies in the discharge letter, accounting for 50.2% of all 554 discrepancies identified in the discharge letters. The likelihood for experiencing discrepancies at admission increased by 47% for every additional drug listed in the medication history.

Conclusions:

Discrepancies in the physician-acquired medication history at admission do not always correlate with discrepancies during hospitalization because of clinical pharmacists’ interventions; however, discrepancies at admission may be associated with at least half of the discrepancies at discharge. Clinical pharmacist–conducted medication reconciliation can reduce these discrepancies, provided the erroneous information in the physician-acquired medication history is corrected and each intentional change in the medication plan is well documented during hospitalization and at discharge.

Influence of pharmacy practice on community pharmacists' integration of medication and lab value information from electronic health records

OBJECTIVES

To describe how an electronic health record (EHR) was integrated into community pharmacists' patterns of patient care and to explore factors that are related to the use of medication and laboratory value information from the EHR.

DESIGN

Descriptive, exploratory, nonexperimental study.

SETTING

Edmonton, Canada, between November 2008 and March 2009.

PARTICIPANTS

16 pharmacists, 3 pharmacy technicians, and 2 pharmacy interns from primary care networks, long-term care settings, community independent and chain pharmacies, and grocery store pharmacies.

INTERVENTION

Qualitative interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Pharmacists' self-reported use of EHR.

RESULTS

Pharmacists in a patient-centered care practice (involving medication therapy management activities) were more likely to adopt the EHR for medication history and laboratory values, whereas pharmacists whose practice was focused on medication dispensing primarily used the EHR for patient demographic and dispensing records. Six general factors influenced the use of EHR: patients, pharmacists, pharmacy, other health professionals (i.e., physicians), EHR, and environment. Access to the medical record versus EHR and timeliness were barriers specific to pharmacists in a patient-centered practice. Factors that affected EHR use for pharmacists with primarily a dispensing practice were role understanding, dispensing versus lab records, valid reasons for using EHR, and fear of legal and disciplinary issues.

CONCLUSION

Many community pharmacists embraced the EHR as a part of practice change, particularly those in patient-centered care practices. Practice type (patient-centered care or dispensing) greatly influenced pharmacists' use of EHR, specifically laboratory values. Because these qualitative findings are exploratory in nature, they may not be generalized beyond the participating pharmacies.

The emerging role of electronic medical records in pharmacogenomics

Health-care information technology and genotyping technology are both advancing rapidly, creating new opportunities for medical and scientific discovery. The convergence of these two technologies is now facilitating genetic association studies of unprecedented size within the context of routine clinical care. As a result, the medical community will soon be presented with a number of novel opportunities to bring functional genomics to the bedside in the area of pharmacotherapy. By linking biological material to comprehensive medical records, large multi-institutional biobanks are now poised to advance the field of pharmacogenomics through three distinct mechanisms: (i) retrospective assessment of previously known findings in a clinical practice-based setting, (ii) discovery of new associations in huge observational cohorts, and (iii) prospective application in a setting capable of providing real-time decision support. This review explores each of these translational mechanisms within a historical framework.