Number Of Unintentional Discrepancies Research Articles

Comparison between proactive and retroactive models of medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.

Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model. This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model. 556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51). This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.

Impact of Pharmacist-Directed Medication Reconciliation in Reducing Medication Discrepancies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

In hospital surgical wards, patients are at higher risk for medication errors, in part because physicians may not consider themselves sufficiently trained to prescribe medications. Hence, collaborative teamwork involving the pharmacist is needed. To assess the impact of medication reconciliation directed by pharmacists on decreasing medication discrepancies after discharge from the surgical ward. Patients admitted to the surgical unit at a tertiary teaching hospital in Amman, Jordan, between July 2017 and July 2018 were selected and randomly assigned to either the control or the intervention group. Upon admission, the number and kinds of unintentional medication discrepancies were determined for both groups. Medication reconciliation was then provided to patients in the intervention group. The number of unintentional discrepancies was re-evaluated upon discharge for both groups. To assess differences between the control and intervention groups, the χ2 or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables and an independent-sample t test for continuous data. A paired t test was conducted to determine whether the number of medication discrepancies was reduced as a result of pharmacists' recommendations. A total of 123 patients met the inclusion criteria, 61 in the intervention group and 62 in the control group. Discrepancies of omission and wrong dose constituted 41 (77%) of the 53 discrepancies in the intervention group and 25 (76%) of the 33 discrepancies in the control group. The number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly reduced from admission to discharge in both the intervention group (p = 0.002) and the control group (p = 0.007). Of 53 recommendations made by pharmacists, 20 (38%) were accepted by the treating physician, and all of these discrepancies were resolved. This study sheds light on the existence of unintentional medication discrepancies upon admission for surgical patients, which may expose the patients to potential harm upon discharge from hospital. Additional studies with a larger sample size are needed to gain further insights on pharmacists' role in implementing medication reconciliation for surgical patients.

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

BackgroundMedication 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsUnintentional 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.

Assessing the impact of virtual medication history technicians on medication reconciliation discrepancies.

Background To overcome resource limitations, Ascension hospitals have implemented a virtual pharmacy technician program to facilitate the completion of medication histories in select emergency departments. Objective This multicenter retrospective study aimed to assess the impact of taking a medication history virtually by pharmacy technicians on medication reconciliation accuracy in comparison to other clinicians. Setting Ascension Seton hospitals in Austin, Texas, United States. Method A retrospective chart review including patients above the age of 18, who were directly admitted from the emergency department between January 1, 2019 and August 31, 2019. Study investigators identified, quantified and categorized unintentional discrepancies by comparing medication histories to reconciled medication orders at admission. Descriptive analysis was applied to patient demographics. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were applied to continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively. Main outcome measure The type and number of unintentional discrepancies at admission. Results In 208 patients, a total of 190 unintentional discrepancies were identified. The rate of unintentional discrepancies per medication was significantly lower for virtual pharmacy technicians than other clinicians (8.6% vs. 14.8% respectively, p < 0.0001). The most common type of unintentional discrepancies was omission in both groups. Length of stay, readmissions, and emergency department visits were similar in both groups. The rate of incomplete medication histories was significantly lower for virtual pharmacy technicians than other clinicians (6.7% vs. 62.5% respectively, p < 0.0001). Conclusion Implementing a virtual medication history technician program in the emergency department can revolutionize the medication history completion process and lower unintentional medication discrepancy rates.

Impact of pharmacist's directed medication reconciliation on reducing medication discrepancies during transition of care in hospital setting

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the effect of pharmacist's directed services (reconciliation plus counselling) on reducing medication discrepancies and improving patient's outcomes at discharge from hospital. Methods During the 3-month study period, 200 patients were randomly selected from internal medicine department from Jordan University Hospital (JUH) and allocated into two groups (intervention and control groups). The number and types of medication discrepancies were identified at admission. Then, pharmacist implemented medication reconciliation and medication counselling services to the intervention group patients. At discharge, the number of unintentional discrepancies was evaluated for both groups. Patients were assessed at 1 month following their discharge for any subsequent hospital readmissions, emergency department visits or side effects of medication therapy. Key findings The total number of identified unintentional discrepancies was 84 for the intervention group compared with 60 discrepancies for the control group. Omission and addition represented the most common types of discrepancies for both groups. Of the 84 recommendations submitted by pharmacists, clinicians accepted 78 cases (92.8%), and implemented only 46 recommendations (54.7%). At discharge, a significant reduction in the number of unintentional discrepancies was achieved for the intervention group, P-value (0.014), while no significant change was found for the control group, P-value = 0.508. One month postdischarge, a significantly higher number of patients in the control group reported experiencing side effects compared with the intervention group, P-value = 0.020. Conclusion The presence of clinical pharmacists in hospital wards had a promising effect on decreasing the number of medication errors and improving health outcomes.

Reducing Adverse Prescribing Discrepancies Following Hospital Discharge

Abstract General medical patients from an east London teaching hospital were recruited into intervention and comparison groups. Those recruited into the intervention group were given a copy of a letter listing their drugs prescribed at discharge and asked to give it to their regular community pharmacist when they went to obtain their prescribed drugs following hospital discharge. A comparison group returned home without a letter for their community pharmacist. Recruited patients were visited in their own homes once their community supply of drugs had been obtained. The frequency of all discrepancies between the prescribed drugs were compared for both groups. A consensus panel judged the importance of the discrepancies observed. The numbers deemed as clinically significant were compared for both groups, as the effect of the intervention. The 501 patients followed up (264 in the intervention group and 237 in the comparison group) were prescribed 2,736 drugs. The number of unintentional discrepancies observed was lower for the intervention group (32.2 per cent, 454/1,408) than for the comparison group (52.7 per cent, 700/1,328) (chi-squared 117.38, P&amp;lt;0.001). The number of discrepancies judged to have a definite adverse effect was lower in the intervention group (1.6 per cent, 23/1,408) than in the comparison group (3.1 per cent, 41/1,328) (chi-squared 6.32, P&amp;lt;0.01). Discharging 19 patients with such information to take to their community pharmacist would result in the prevention of one unintentional discrepancy having a definite adverse effect. Providing community pharmacists with a copy of patients' discharge summaries is an effective method of reducing unintentional discrepancies, with measurable patient benefit.

Best Possible Medication History in the Emergency Department: Comparing Pharmacy Technicians and Pharmacists

Obtaining an accurate and complete medication list (i.e., the best possible medication history [BPMH]) is the first step in completing medication reconciliation. The ability of pharmacy technicians to obtain medication histories, relative to that of pharmacists, has not been formally assessed. To determine whether pharmacy technicians at the authors' institution could obtain a BPMH as accurately and completely as pharmacists and if both groups met national norms for unintentional discrepancies and the success index for medication reconciliation. Pharmacy technicians were trained in obtaining a BPMH at the beginning of the study, before any patients were enrolled. Patients presenting to the emergency department were prospectively enrolled to be interviewed separately by both a pharmacist and a technician, with information recorded on standard medication reconciliation forms. The completed forms for each patient were compared following each set of interviews, and discrepancies were clarified with the patient. Fifty-nine patients were included in the study, and 3 pharmacists and 2 technicians obtained the histories. There was no significant difference between pharmacists and technicians in terms of discrepancies involving prescription drugs (χ(2) = 0.52, df = 1, n = 118, p = 0.47, Cramer's V for effect size = 0.07) or over-the-counter medications (χ(2) = 0.09, df = 1, n = 118, p = 0.77, Cramer's V = 0.03). The mean number of discrepancies per patient did not differ significantly between the pharmacists and technicians (t = 0.15, df = 58, p = 0.88 for prescription drugs; t = -0.22, df = 58, p = 0.83 for over-the-counter products). For both groups, the number of unintentional discrepancies per patient was significantly lower and the success index for medication reconciliation significantly higher than the national average. Trained pharmacy technicians at the authors' institution were able to obtain a BPMH with as much accuracy and completeness as pharmacists. Both groups were significantly superior to the national average in terms of unintentional discrepancies and success index for medication reconciliation.