"Let's Chat!" Improving Emergency Department Staff Satisfaction with the Medication Reconciliation Process.

Introduction: Patients who stay in the emergency department (ED) for prolonged periods of time require verification of home medications, a process known as medication reconciliation. The complex nature of medication reconciliation can lead to adverse events and staff dissatisfaction. A multidisciplinary team was formed to improve accuracy, timing, and staff satisfaction with the medication reconciliation process. Methods: Between November 2021-January 2022, stakeholders were surveyed to identify gaps in the medication reconciliation process. This project implemented education on role-specific tasks, as well as a "Let's chat!" huddle, bringing together the entire care team to perform medication reconciliation. We used real-time evaluations by frontline staff to evaluate effectiveness during plan- do-study-act cycles and obtain feedback. Following the implementation period, stakeholders completed the post-intervention survey between June-July 2022, using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = very dissatisfied to 3 = very satisfied). We calculated the change in staff satisfaction from pre-intervention to post-intervention. Differences in proportions and 95% confidence intervals are reported. This study adhered to the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) and followed the Lean Six Sigma rapid cycle process improvement (define-measure-analyze-improve-control). Results: A total of 111 front-line ED staff (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, nurses) completed the pre-intervention survey (of 350 ED staff, corresponding to a 31.7% response rate), and 89 stakeholders completed the post-intervention survey (a 25.4% response rate). Subjective feedback from staff identifying causes of low satisfaction with the initial process included the following: complexity of process; unclear delineation of staff roles; time burden to completion; high patient volume; and lack of standardized communication of task completion. Overall satisfaction improved after the intervention. The greatest improvement was seen in the correct medication (difference 20.7%, confidence interval [CI] 6.3-33.9%, P < 0.01), correct dose (25.6%, CI 11.4-38.6%, P < 0.001) and time last taken (24.5%, CI 11.4-37.0%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: There is a steep learning curve to educate multidisciplinary staff on a new process and implement the associated changes. With goals to impact the safety of our patients and reduce negative outcomes, engagement and awareness of the team involved in the medication reconciliation process is critical to improve staff satisfaction.

A national survey on assessment of knowledge, perceptions, practice, and barriers among hospital pharmacists towards medication reconciliation in United Arab Emirates.

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) helps prevent medication errors. This cross-sectional, nationwide study assessed the knowledge, perceptions, practice, and barriers toward MedRec amongst hospital pharmacy practitioners in the United Arab Emirates. A total of 342 conveniently chosen stratified hospital pharmacists responded to the online survey (88.6% response rate). Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied at alpha = 0.05 and post hoc analysis was performed using Bonferroni test. The overall median knowledge score was 9/12 with IQR (9-11) with higher levels among clinical pharmacists (p < 0.001) and previously trained pharmacists (p < 0.001). Of the respondents, 35.09% (n = 120) practiced MedRec for fewer than five patients per week despite having a strong perception of their role in this process. The overall median perception score was 32.5/35 IQR (28-35) with higher scores among clinical pharmacists (p < 0.001) and those who attended previous training or workshops (p < 0.001). The median barrier score was 24/30 with an IQR (21-25), where lack of training and knowledge were the most common barriers. Results showed that pharmacists who did not attend previous training or workshops on MedRec had higher barrier levels than those who attended (p = 0.012). This study emphasizes the significance of tackling knowledge gaps, aligning perceptions with practice, and suggesting educational interventions.

Nurse-led medication management as a critical component of transitional care for preventing drug-related problems.

Drug-related problems (DRPs) are critical medical issues during transition from hospital to home with high prevalence. The application of a variety of interventional strategies as part of the transitional care has been studied for preventing DRPs. However, it remains challenging for minimizing DRPs in patients, especially in older adults and those with high risk of medication discrepancies after hospital discharge. In this narrative review, we demonstrated that age, specific medications and polypharmacy, as well as some patient-related and system-related factors all contribute to a higher prevalence of transitional DPRs, most of which could be largely prevented by enhancing nurse-led multidisciplinary medication reconciliation. Nurses' contributions during transitional period for preventing DRPs include information collection and evaluation, communication and education, enhancement of medication adherence, as well as coordination among healthcare professionals. We concluded that nurse-led strategies for medication management can be implemented to prevent or solve DRPs during the high-risk transitional period, and subsequently improve patients' satisfaction and health-related outcomes, prevent the unnecessary loss and waste of medical expenditure and resources, and increase the efficiency of the multidisciplinary teamwork during transitional care.

Medication Optimization Protocol Efficacy for Geriatric Inpatients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is currently no consensus on clinically effective interventions for polypharmacy among older inpatients. Objective: To evaluate the effect of multidisciplinary team-based medication optimization on survival, unscheduled hospital visits, and rehospitalization in older inpatients with polypharmacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at 8 internal medicine inpatient wards within a community hospital in Japan. Participants included medical inpatients 65 years or older who were receiving 5 or more regular medications. Enrollment took place between May 21, 2019, and March 14, 2022. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2023 to May 2024. Intervention: The participants were randomly assigned to receive either an intervention for medication optimization or usual care including medication reconciliation. The intervention consisted of a medication review using the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions)/START (Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment) criteria, followed by a medication optimization proposal for participants and their attending physicians developed by a multidisciplinary team. On discharge, the medication optimization summary was sent to patients' primary care physicians and community pharmacists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death, unscheduled hospital visits, and rehospitalization within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the number of prescribed medications, falls, and adverse events. Results: Between May 21, 2019, and March 14, 2022, 442 participants (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.1] years; 223 [50.5%] women) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 215) and usual care (n = 227). The intervention group had a significantly lower percentage of patients with 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications than the usual care group at discharge (26.2% vs 33.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33-0.94]; P = .03), at 6 months (27.7% vs 37.5%; adjusted OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.86]; P = .01), and at 12 months (26.7% vs 37.4%; adjusted OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P = .007). The primary composite outcome occurred in 106 participants (49.3%) in the intervention group and 117 (51.5%) in the usual care group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.27]). Adverse events were similar between each group (123 [57.2%] in the intervention group and 135 [59.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of older inpatients with polypharmacy, the multidisciplinary deprescribing intervention did not reduce death, unscheduled hospital visits, or rehospitalization within 12 months. The intervention was effective in reducing the number of medications with no significant adverse effects on clinical outcomes, even among older inpatients with polypharmacy. Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000035265.

Stakeholder perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy and prescribing cascades: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Problematic polypharmacy is the prescribing of five or more medications potentially inappropriately. Unintentional prescribing cascades represent an under-researched aspect of problematic polypharmacy and occur when an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is misinterpreted as a new symptom resulting in the initiation of a new medication. The aim of this study was to elicit key stakeholders' perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy, with a focus on prescribing cascades. METHODS: qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with predefined key stakeholder groups. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirty-one stakeholders were interviewed: six patients, two carers, seven general practitioners, eight pharmacists, four hospital doctors, two professional organisation representatives and two policymakers. Three main themes were identified: (i) ADRs and prescribing cascades-a necessary evil. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) expressed concern that experiencing an ADR would negatively impact patients' confidence in their doctor. However, patients viewed ADRs pragmatically as an unpredictable risk. (ii) Balancing the risk/benefit tipping point. The complexity of prescribing decisions in the context of polypharmacy made balancing this tipping point challenging. Consequently, HCPs avoided medication changes. (iii) The minefield of medication reconciliation. Stakeholders, including patients and carers, viewed medication reconciliation as a perilous activity due to systemic communication deficits. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders believed that at a certain depth of polypharmacy, the risk that a new symptom is being caused by an existing medication becomes incalculable. Therefore, in the absence of harm, medication changes were avoided. However, medication reconciliation post hospital discharge compelled prescribing decisions and was seen as a high-risk activity by stakeholders.

[Geriatric ophthalmologic co-management : A case report of interdisciplinary collaboration]. / Geriatrisch-ophthalmologisches Co-Management : Ein Fallbeispiel interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit.

This case report details the assessment and interdisciplinary collaboration in the management of an 81-year-old patient presenting with acute visual impairment, dizziness, general weakness, gait disturbances and fear of falling. A holistic geriatric evaluation revealed orthostatic dysregulation and an underlying multifactorial gait disorder exacerbated by visual impairment. Ophthalmological findings included left central retinal artery branch occlusion and cataracts. A comprehensive geriatric assessment showed frailty, impaired mobility and decreased functional abilities. Subsequent patient-centered interdisciplinary approaches included treatment for retinal ischemia, orthostatic testing, medication reconciliation, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. This case emphasizes how interdisciplinary collaboration between ophthalmology and geriatrics enables proactive assessment and intervention to reduce the risk of functional decline and loss of autonomy in visually impaired patients, which is of particular relevance considering the increasing prevalence of visual impairment in the ageing population.

Development of the entrustable professional activity 'medication reconciliation' for clinical pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are observable process descriptions of clinical work units. EPAs support learners and tutors in assessment within healthcare settings. For use amongst our pharmacy students as well as pre-registration pharmacists we wanted to develop and validate an EPA for use in a clinical pharmacy setting at LMU University Hospital. METHODS: The development of the clinical pharmacy EPA followed a set pathway. A rapid literature review informed the first draft, an interprofessional consensus group consisting of pharmacists, nurses, and medical doctors refined this draft. The refined version was then validated via online survey utilising clinical pharmacists from Germany. RESULTS: We designed, refined and validated an EPA regarding medication reconciliation for assessment of pharmacy students and trainees within the pharmacy department at LMU University Hospital in Munich. Along with the EPA description an associated checklist to support the entrustment decision was created. For validation an online survey with 27 clinical pharmacists from all over Germany was conducted. Quality testing with the EQual rubric showed a good EPA quality. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first clinical pharmacy EPA for use in a German context. Medication reconciliation is a suitable EPA candidate as it describes a clinical activity performed by pharmacists in many clinical settings. The newly developed and validated EPA 'Medication Reconciliation' will be used to assess pharmacy students and trainees.

Medication Discrepancies among Older Hospitalized Adults Discharged from Post-Acute Care Facilities to Home.

OBJECTIVES: The epidemiology of medication discrepancies during transitions from post-acute care (PAC) to home is poorly described. We sought to describe the frequency and types of medication discrepancies among hospitalized older adults transitioning from PAC to home. DESIGN: A nested cohort analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Included participants enrolled in a patient-centered deprescribing trial, for patients (aged ≥50 years and taking at least 5 medications) transitioning from one of 22 PACs to home. METHODS: We assessed demographic and medication measures at the initial hospitalization. The primary outcome measure was medication discrepancies, with the PAC discharge list serving as reference for comparison to the participant's self-reported medication list at 7 days following PAC discharge. Discrepancies were categorized as additions, omissions, and dose discrepancies and were organized by common medication classes and risk of harm (eg, 2015 Beers Criteria). Ordinal logistic regression assessed for patient risk factors for PAC discharge discrepancy count. RESULTS: A total of 184 participants had 7-day PAC discharge medication data. Participants were predominately female (67%) and Caucasian (83%) with a median of 16 prehospital medications [interquartile range (IQR) 11, 20]. At the 7-day follow-up, 98% of participants had at least 1 medication discrepancy, with a median number of 7 medication discrepancies (IQR 4, 10) per person, 4 (IQR 2, 6) of which were potentially inappropriate medications as defined by the Beers Criteria. Higher medication discrepancies at index hospital admission and receipt of caregiver assistance with medications were 2 key predictors of medication discrepancies in the week after PAC discharge to home. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Older patients transitioning home from a PAC facility are at high risk for medication discrepancies. This study underscores the need for interventions targeted at this overlooked transition period, especially as patients resume responsibility for managing their own medications after both a hospital and PAC stay.

Development and validation of a new drug-focused predictive risk score for postoperative delirium in orthopaedic and trauma surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common complication following surgery in elderly patients. During pharmacist-led medication reconciliation (PhMR), a predictive risk score considering delirium risk-increasing drugs and other available risk factors could help to identify risk patients. METHODS: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery patients aged ≥ 18 years with PhMR were included in a retrospective observational single-centre study 03/2022-10/2022. The study cohort was randomly split into a development and a validation cohort (6:4 ratio). POD was assessed through the 4 A's test (4AT), delirium diagnosis, and chart review. Potential risk factors available at PhMR were tested via univariable analysis. Significant variables were added to a multivariable logistic regression model. Based on the regression coefficients, a risk score for POD including delirium risk-increasing drugs (DRD score) was established. RESULTS: POD occurred in 42/328 (12.8%) and 30/218 (13.8%) patients in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Of the seven evaluated risk factors, four were ultimately tested in a multivariable logistic regression model. The final DRD score included age (66-75 years, 2 points; > 75 years, 3 points), renal impairment (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2, 1 point), anticholinergic burden (ACB-score ≥ 3, 1 point), and delirium risk-increasing drugs (n ≥ 2; 2 points). Patients with ≥ 4 points were classified as having a high risk for POD. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the risk score model were 0.89 and 0.81 for the development and the validation cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: The DRD score is a predictive risk score assessable during PhMR and can identify patients at risk for POD. Specific preventive measures concerning drug therapy safety and non-pharmacological actions should be implemented for identified risk patients.

Initiative to deprescribe high-risk drugs for older adults presenting to the emergency department after falls.

BACKGROUND: Over 35 million falls occur in older adults annually and are associated with increased emergency department (ED) revisits and 1-year mortality. Despite associations between medications and falls, the prevalence of fall risk-increasing drugs remains high. Our objective was to implement an ED-based medication reconciliation for patients presenting after falls and determine whether an intervention targeting high-risk medications was related to decreased future falls. METHODS: This was an observational prospective cohort study at a single site in the United States. Adults 65 years and older presenting to the ED after falls had a pharmacist review their medicines. Pharmacists made recommendations to taper, stop, or discuss medications with the primary clinician. At 3, 6, and 12 months, we recorded the number of fall-related return ED visits and determined if recommended medication changes had been implemented. We compared the rate of return visits of patients who had followed the medication change recommendations and those who received recommendations but had no change in their medications using chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 577 patients (mean age 81 years, 63.6% female) were enrolled of 1509 potentially eligible patients. High-risk medications were identified in 310 patients (53.7%) who received medication recommendations. High-risk medications were associated with repeat fall-related visits at 12 months (risk difference 8.1% [95% confidence interval 0.97-15.0]). A total of 134 (43%) patients on high-risk medications had evidence of medication modification. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in return fall visits between patients who had modifications to medications compared with those who had not implemented changes (p = 0.551). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified opportunities for medication optimization in over half of emergency visits for falls and demonstrated that medication counseling in the ED is feasible. However, evaluation of the effect on future falls was limited.

Optimisation of medication reconciliation using queueing theory: a computer experiment.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) in hospitals is an important tool to enhance the continuity of care, but completing MedRec is challenging. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether queueing theory could be used to compare various interventions to optimise the MedRec process to ultimately reduce the number of patients discharged prior to MedRec being completed. Queueing theory, the mathematical study of waiting lines or queues, has not been previously applied in hospital pharmacies but enables comparisons without interfering with the baseline workflow. METHOD: Possible interventions to enhance the MedRec process (replacing in-person conversations with telephone conversations, reallocating pharmacy technicians (PTs) or adjusting their working schedule) were compared in a computer experiment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with an incomplete discharge MedRec. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible to add a real-life post hoc intervention (PTs starting their shift later) to the theoretical interventions. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: The queueing model showed that the number of patients with an incomplete discharge MedRec decreased from 37.2% in the original scenario to approximately 16% when the PTs started their shift 2 h earlier and 1 PT was reassigned to prepare the discharge MedRec. The number increased with the real-life post hoc intervention (PTs starting later), which matches a decrease in the computer experiment when started earlier. CONCLUSION: Using queueing theory in a computer experiment could identify the most promising theoretical intervention to decrease the percentage of patients discharged prior to MedRec being completed.

[Concordance of medication prescription records in the hospitalised surgical patient]. / Concordancia de los registros de prescripción de medicamentos en el paciente quirúrgico hospitalizado.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic prescription is the prescription system that allows healthcare professionals to send medication prescriptions directly to community pharmacies and the outpatient unit of Hospital Pharmacy Services for dispensing. However, there is difficulty in obtaining a reliable pharmacotherapeutic history in chronic patients through electronic prescription upon hospital admission as a critical point for adequate treatment adaptation. Therefore, the pharmacist as a member of the multidisciplinary team must ensure, through medication conciliation, an adequate transition of care through the correct management of the treatment that the chronic patient requires during their hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of electronic prescription records for routine chronic treatment by analyzing the concordance of the electronic prescription. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional and retrospective study at the General University Hospital of Elche. Hospitalized patients in charge of the Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Urology and Neurosurgery Services in which the responsible doctor requested medication reconciliation by the Pharmacy Service between January 2022 - December 2022 were included. RESULTS: 378 patients, 209 (55.3%) women and 169 (44.7%) men, with a mean age±standard deviation of 71.0±11.6 years and 69.0±11.8 years, respectively. The total percentage of patients with discrepancies in the electronic prescription with respect to the usual chronic treatment was 60.6%, reflecting that only 39.4% of the patients had non-discordant electronic prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of hospitalized surgical patients present discrepancies in the medications prescribed in the home electronic prescription, which justifies the importance of treatment reconciliation upon admission carried out by hospital pharmacists.

A newly developed algorithm for switching outpatient medications to medications listed in the hospital formulary: a prospective real-word evaluation in patients admitted electively to hospital.

PURPOSE: In many countries, outpatient and inpatient care are separated. During hospitalization, therefore, switching the outpatient medication to medication of the hospital formulary is required. METHODS: We newly designed a switching algorithm in six switching steps (S0-S5) and conducted a study at Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg (300 beds, 80% civilians). We performed (i) a medication reconciliation to obtain information on outpatient medications and (ii) a medication review to solve drug-related-problems, e.g., drug-drug interactions. We applied (iii) the algorithm to switch medications to the hospital formulary. RESULTS: (i) We identified 475 outpatient medications (median per patient: 4; Q25/Q75 2/7) in 100 patients consecutively admitted to hospital (median age: 71; Q25/Q75: 64/80 years). Of 475 medications, the switching algorithm could not be used since product names were missing in 23.9% and strength in 1.7%. In 3.2%, switching was not required since medication was not prescribed during the hospital stay. (ii) Drug-drug interactions were identified in 31 of 79 patients with more than one medication. (iii) Of 475 medications, 18.5% were on the hospital formulary and therefore did not need to be  switched (S0), 0.2% were on a substitution-exclusion list not allowing switching (S1), 42.0% were switched to a generic medication of the hospital formulary (S2), 1.7% to a therapeutically equivalent medication (S3), 0.4% were patient-individually switched (S4), and for 8.2% a standardized/patient-individual switching was not possible (S5). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comprehensive medication reconciliation, patient- and medication-related information for switching medications to the hospital formulary was often missing. Once all the necessary information was available, standardized switching could be easily carried out according to a newly developed switching algorithm.

Approaches to medication history taking in different hospital settings: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A comprehensive medication history can contribute to safe therapy. Many approaches aiming to improve medication history taking require significant human resources. To design an efficient process that delivers high-quality medication histories, the individual requirements and resources of a given setting need to be considered. We aimed to provide an overview of existing approaches to medication history taking and their performance in different settings to potentially support the selection of an appropriate procedure. METHODS: We searched 3 literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) for publications on approaches to medication history taking and analyzed them with regard to their key components as well as the setting, patient population, assessed outcomes, and efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 65 publications were included and analyzed. The majority of the reported approaches relied on involvement of dedicated staff (n = 43), followed by process-oriented interventions (eg, checklists; n = 15) and information technology (IT)-guided interventions (n = 11). A mean (SD) of 6 (2.9) outcomes were described in each study. Medication discrepancies were reported in 89% of all studies, yet about 75 different descriptions of this outcome were used, making it difficult to compare study results. Only 11 studies applied a sample size calculation and statistical tests. Of those, 10 reported a positive effect of their respective intervention on the quality of medication histories. CONCLUSION: Most approaches focused on pharmacy staff, which are associated with considerable cost and resources. Therefore, IT-based approaches and patient engagement should be investigated as cost-effective alternatives and tested for superiority in the same setting. Reporting guidelines and standardized methodology are needed to improve the comparability of such studies.

Community pharmacy discharge medicines service activity as recorded in PharmOutcomes: a retrospective exploration and analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Transition of care when a patient moves between healthcare locations is a risk factor for medication errors and medicines-related preventable harm. The aims of this retrospective service evaluation were to understand, by classifying and quantifying, the nature of interventions made by community pharmacy when receiving a discharge medicines service referral from a secondary care hospital, with a focus on two groups of high-risk medicines supplied at discharge-oral anticoagulants and weak opioids following hip or knee surgery. METHODS: Records made on the PharmOutcomes™ platform by community pharmacists in response to referral for the NHS England discharge medicines service were analysed and summarized. This analysis was exploratory and interpretative in nature and used a convenience sample of patients who had consented for the service over 12 months from May 2022 to April 2023. KEY FINDINGS: During 12 months, 6811 referrals occurred, of which 71% were recorded as having different stages of the service completed on PharmOutcomes™. Medicines reconciliation, first-prescription review, and consultation stages decreased as patients progressed through the service. Slightly greater rates of completion were observed for patients receiving oral anticoagulants and for codeine or dihydrocodeine following hip and knee surgery, although overall referrals were low for this latter cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Through this service, community pharmacists are well placed to support the safe and effective use of medicines including oral anticoagulants and weak opioids posthospital discharge and potentially reduce incidents of avoidable harm. The variations in recorded completion rates across the three stages of the service and the apparent greater finalization rates for the high-risk medicines studied require further investigation.

Journey of medication reconciliation compliance in a lower middle-income country: a retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE: There were three main objectives of the study: to determine the overall compliance of medication reconciliation over 4 years in a tertiary care hospital, to compare the medication reconciliation compliance between paper entry (initial assessment forms) and computerised physician order entry (CPOE), and to identify the discrepancies between the medication history taken by the physician at the time of admission and those collected by the pharmacist within 24 hours of admission. METHODS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in a lower middle-income country. Data were gathered from two different sources. The first source involved retrospective data obtained from the Quality and Patient Safety Department (QPSD) of the hospital, consisting of records from 8776 patients between 2018 and 2021. The second data source was also retrospective from a quality project initiated by pharmacists at the hospital. Pharmacists collected data from 1105 patients between 2020 and 2021, specifically focusing on medication history and identifying any discrepancies compared with the history documented by physicians. The collected data were then analysed using SPSS V.26. RESULTS: The QPSD noted an improvement in physician-led medication reconciliation, with a rise from 32.7% in 2018 to 69.4% in 2021 in CPOE. However, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation identified a 25.4% (n=281/1105) overall discrepancy in the medication history of patients admitted from 2020 to 2021, mainly due to incomplete medication records in the initial assessment forms and CPOE. Physicians missed critical drugs in 4.9% of records; pharmacists identified and updated them. CONCLUSION: In a lower middle-income nation where hiring pharmacists to conduct medication reconciliation would be an additional cost burden for hospitals, encouraging physicians to record medication history more precisely would be a more workable method. However, in situations where cost is not an issue, it is recommended to adopt evidence-based practices, such as integrating clinical pharmacists to lead medication reconciliation, which is the gold standard worldwide.

Evaluation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: A multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, nonrandomised controlled study.

Background: Due to a lack of related research, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation intervention in China. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, open-label, assessor-blinded, cluster, nonrandomised controlled study at six county-level hospitals, with hospital wards serving as the clusters. We included patients discharged from the sampled hospitals who were aged ≥60 years; had ≥1 studied diagnoses; and were prescribed with ≥3 medications at discharge. Patients in the intervention group received a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation intervention and those in the control group received standard care. We assessed the incidence of medication discrepancies at discharge, patients' medication adherence, and health care utilisation within 30 days after discharge. Results: There were 429 patients in the intervention group (mean age = 72.5 years, standard deviation (SD) = 7.0) and 526 patients in the control group (mean age = 73.6 years, SD = 7.1). Of the 1632 medication discrepancies identified at discharge, fewer occurred in the intervention group (1.9 per patient on average) than the control group (2.6 per patient on average).The intervention significantly reduced the incidence of medication discrepancy by 9.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.6, -3.6, P = 0.002) and improved patients' medication adherence, with an absolute decrease in the mean adherence score of 2.5 (95% CI = -2.8, -2.2, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in readmission rates between the intervention and control groups. Conclusions: Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at discharge from Chinese county-level hospitals reduced medication discrepancies and improved patients' adherence among patients aged 60 years or above, though no impact on readmission after discharge was observed. Registration: ChiCTR2100045668.

Assessing feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up among older adults at community pharmacy: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication review with follow-up is essential for optimising medication utilisation among the older adult population in primary healthcare. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing medication reviews with follow-up for older adults in community pharmacies and examined potential outcomes on medication use. METHOD: A pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted with 4 cluster-randomised community pharmacies to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Two community pharmacies served as intervention and control groups. Both groups recruited older adults over 60 who were followed over 6 months. The translated Medication use Questionnaire (MedUseQ) was administered at baseline and 6 months for both groups. The outcomes were to assess the feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up and the probable medication use outcomes from the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention and control groups comprised 14 and 13 older adults. A total of 35 recommendations were made by pharmacists in the intervention group and 8 in the control group. MedUseQ was easily administered, providing some evidence the feasibility of the intervention. However, there were feasibility challenges such as a lack of pharmacists, collaborative practice, difficulties with the tool language, time constraints, and limited funds. Questionnaire results provided a signal of improvement in medication administration, adherence, and polypharmacy among intervention participants. The incidence of drug related problems was significantly higher in the control group (median = 1) after 6 months, U = 15, z = - 2.98, p = 0.01. CONCLUSION: Medication review with follow-up is potentialy practical in community pharmacies, but there are feasibility issues. While these challenges can be addressed, it is essential to study larger sample sizes to establish more robust evidence regarding outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT05297461.

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

BACKGROUND: Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.