Providing community-based health practitioners with timely and accurate discharge medicines information.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely medication information at the point of discharge is essential for continuity of care. There are scarce data on the clinical significance if poor quality medicines information is passed to the next episode of care. This study aimed to compare the number and clinical significance of medication errors and omission in discharge medicines information, and the timeliness of delivery of this information to community-based health practitioners, between the existing Hospital Discharge Summary (HDS) and a pharmacist prepared Medicines Information Transfer Fax (MITF). METHOD: The study used a sample of 80 hospital patients who were at high risk of medication misadventure, and who had a MITF completed in the study period June - October 2009 at a tertiary referral hospital. The medicines information in participating patients' MITFs was validated against their Discharge Prescriptions (DP). Medicines information in each patient's HDS was then compared with their validated MITF. An expert clinical panel reviewed identified medication errors and omissions to determine their clinical significance. The time between patient discharge and the dispatching of the MITF and the HDS to each patient's community-based practitioners was calculated from hospital records. RESULTS: DPs for 77 of the 80 patients were available for comparison with their MITFs. Medicines information in 71 (92%) of the MITFs matched that of the DP. Comparison of the HDS against the MITF revealed that no HDS was prepared for 16 (21%) patients. Of the remaining 61 patients; 33 (54%), had required medications omitted and 38 (62%) had medication errors in their HDS. The Clinical Panel rated the significance of errors or omissions for 70 patients (16 with no HDS prepared and 54 who's HDS was inconsistent with the validated MITF). In 17 patients the error or omission was rated as insignificant to minor; 23 minor to moderate; 24 moderate to major and 6 major to catastrophic. 28 (35%) patients had their HDS dispatched to their community-based practitioners within 48 hours post discharge compared to 80 (100%) of MITFs. CONCLUSION: The MITF is an effective approach for the timely delivery of accurate discharge medicines information to community-based practitioners responsible for the patient's ongoing care.

Integrating pharmacists into care teams: a qualitative systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will systematically examine the qualitative literature reporting on strategies that have been used (or could be developed) by health care services to integrate pharmacists into a multidisciplinary health care team. INTRODUCTION: Delivery models of pharmaceutical care have been developed, trialed and refined since this concept was first defined more than 30 years ago. Delivery models that integrate pharmacists within a multidisciplinary team allow pharmacists to play a pivotal role in improving health outcomes for patients and contributing to patient self-management. Systematic reviews clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of these models; however, the attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings, perceptions and experiences of these multidisciplinary teams is less clear. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The populations of interest in this review are health care providers, including hospital specialists, general practitioners, nurses, health workers, pharmacists, allied health workers, aged care workers, Indigenous health workers and health promotion workers. The phenomena of interest are attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings, perceptions and experiences of the populations of interest arising from experiencing, developing or implementing strategies that have or could support the integration of pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams. METHODS: The databases to be searched include PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO (CINAHL), Embase, MedNar, Trove and Australian Indigenous Health Infonet. Studies published from 2011 onwards and in English will be considered for inclusion. Selected studies will be assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers, using standardized critical appraisal instruments. Where possible, qualitative research findings will be pooled. Where textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.