Written communication about the use of medications in medical records in a Brazilian hospital

BACKGROUND

Effective communication regarding the use of medications in hospital environments is a process that contributes to patient safety. Despite its importance, written communication about the medication use process in medical records remains insufficiently investigated.

AIM

To describe the documentation in medical records regarding the medication use process by pharmacists, physicians and nurses on admission, during the hospital stay, and at hospital discharge.

METHOD

A retrospective cross-sectional chart review study was carried out in medical records of patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Northeast Brazil. The study considered all patients admitted between December 2016 and February 2017, aged 18 or older and hospitalised for at least 48 hours. Clinical notes made by pharmacists, physicians and nurses were examined at three transition points of care. Data were collected using a questionnaire relating to the use of medications prior to hospital admission, changes in the prescribed medications during the hospital stay and discharge, as well as prescription non-conformities. Communication failures between the three healthcare professional groups were analysed and classified. The study was authorised by the Hospital's Board of Directors and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe.

RESULTS

This study included 202 medical records of patients with a mean age of 51.48 (SD 6.42, range: 19-97) years. There was no record of a patient or relative interview on allergies and adverse drug reactions in 54 (26.8%) physician notes, 44 (21.9%) nursing notes, and 9 (25.0%) pharmacist notes. Moreover, 1,588 changes in prescriptions were identified during data collection, and 1,198 (75.4%) of these were unjustified.

CONCLUSION

Medication-related information in medical records was incomplete and inconsistent in the clinical notes of the three studied professions, especially in pharmacists' documentation. Future studies should focus on investigating the consequences of interprofessional communication in patient care.

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

Introduction

Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.

Aim

To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).

Conclusion

There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.