A quantitative evaluation of medication histories and reconciliation by discipline.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Medication reconciliation at transitions of care decreases medication errors, hospitalizations, and adverse drug events. We compared inpatient medication histories and reconciliation across disciplines and evaluated the nature of discrepancies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients admitted from the emergency department at our 760-bed hospital. Eligible patients had their medication histories conducted and reconciled in order by the admitting nurse (RN), certified pharmacy technician (CPhT), and pharmacist (RPh). Discharge medication reconciliation was not altered. Admission and discharge discrepancies were categorized by discipline, error type, and drug class and were assigned a criticality index score. A discrepancy rating system systematically measured discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 175 consented patients, 153 were evaluated. Total admission and discharge discrepancies were 1,461 and 369, respectively. The average number of medications per participant at admission was 8.59 (1,314) with 9.41 (1,374) at discharge. Most discrepancies were committed by RNs: 53.2% (777) at admission and 56.1% (207) at discharge. The majority were omitted or incorrect. RNs had significantly higher admission discrepancy rates per medication (0.59) compared with CPhTs (0.36) and RPhs (0.16) (P < .001). RPhs corrected significantly more discrepancies per participant than RNs (6.39 vs 0.48; P < .001); average criticality index reduction was 79.0%. Estimated prevented adverse drug events (pADEs) cost savings were $589,744. CONCLUSIONS: RPhs committed the fewest discrepancies compared with RNs and CPhTs, resulting in more accurate medication histories and reconciliation. RPh involvement also prevented the greatest number of medication errors, contributing to considerable pADE-related cost savings.

Utilization of a technology-assisted workflow to prepare controlled substance oral syringes.

PURPOSE: Utilization of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) systems has gained popularity in the sterile compounding setting. This study was designed to evaluate whether safety and efficiency could be seen when preparing oral controlled substance doses gravimetrically vs volumetrically. METHODS: This 2-phase observational study combined manual data collection with automated logs generated by a single TAWF. During phase I, oral controlled substance solutions were prepared volumetrically. In phase II, the same subset of medications was to be prepared gravimetrically via the same TAWF. Findings from phases I and II were compared against each another to determine safety, efficiency, and documentation differences between the volumetric and gravimetric workflows. RESULTS: Thirteen different medications were evaluated during phase I (1,495 preparations) and phase II (1,781 preparations) of this study. Mean compounding time (min:sec) increased in phase II when compared to phase I (1:49 vs 1:28; P < 0.01), with the deviation detection rate also increasing (7.9% vs 4.7%; P < 0.01). Despite a target in phase II of utilizing gravimetric analysis for more than 80% of preparations, only 45.5% (811 preparations) were prepared with this workflow, as adoption challenges and dose size limitations prevented compliance. Doses that were prepared gravimetrically had a mean accuracy rate of 100.6% (the mean achieved dose was 0.6% higher than the mean prescribed dose) and a rejection rate of 0.99% (compared to the phase I rejection rate of 1.07%; P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The gravimetric workflow provided accuracy and additional safety checks when compared to the volumetric alternative, all while providing users with greater access to data. Health systems should consider staffing, product sourcing, patient populations, and medication safety when determining the balance between volumetric and gravimetric workflows.

Impact of Adoption of Smart Pump System With Continuous Capnography Monitoring on Opioid-Related Adverse Event Rates: Experience From a Tertiary Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: The use of opioid analgesics for pain management in hospitalized patients is associated with a high risk of adverse events, including respiratory depression which may lead to respiratory arrest and death. Patients who experience opioid-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have been shown to experience longer and more costly hospital stays and have a higher risk of requiring a readmission after discharge. In this study, we report on the impact of the introduction of Wesley Medical Center's Safe Medication Practice Protocol on opioid-related ADRs. METHODS: A retrospective, pre-post cohort study using electronic health records combined with manual chart review was undertaken at the Wesley Medical Center, a 760-bed tertiary care facility. The Safe Medication Practice Protocol incorporating a smart infusion pump system with capnography monitoring was implemented in May 2010 hospital-wide. The number and severity of ADRs and the duration of opioid treatment were compared between the pre (2007-April 2010) and post (May 2010-2014) periods. RESULTS: A total of 139,734 (pre-period) versus 267,573 (post-period) patients received opioid treatment during the hospital stay. Compared with the pre-period, the post-period resulted in a 79.2% reduction in the number of severe adverse reactions (3.08 vs 0.64 per 10,000 patients treated with opioid, P < 0.0001) as well as a shorter duration of opioid treatment (average 2.05 vs 1.37 days, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing education, revisions to patient-controlled analgesia policies and procedures, and capnography monitoring with patient-controlled analgesia pause is associated with significantly lower rates of severe ADRs and shorter opioid treatment duration.

Implementation of an electronic system for medication reconciliation.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of implementing an electronic system for targeted pharmacist- and nurse-conducted admission and discharge medication reconciliation and its effects on patient safety, cost, and satisfaction among providers and nurses were studied. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases: a preimplementation phase and a postimplementation phase. In the preimplementation phase, admission medication histories and discharge medication counseling followed standard care processes. During postimplementation, pharmacists and nurses collaborated to electronically complete admission and discharge medication reconciliation documentation. Four reports were developed for medication reconciliation documentation: (1) home medication profile report, (2) home medication reconciliation report, (3) discharge medication reconciliation report, and (4) patient discharge medication report. Patients were contacted after discharge to measure their satisfaction with the medication counseling and medication instructions received. Health care providers completed a survey indicating their satisfaction with the electronic medication reconciliation processes. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study. Patients in the postimplementation group took significantly more prescription and nonprescription medications, and their total number of medications significantly exceeded the number taken by the preimplementation group. Pharmacists completed significantly more dosage changes in the postimplementation phase than in the preimplementation phase. In the preimplementation phase, nurses identified more incomplete medication orders, dosage changes, and allergies than they did in the postimplementation phase. Patients in the postimplementation group reported a higher level of agreement on all survey items regarding adequate discharge medication instructions. CONCLUSION: Patients who had their medications electronically reconciled reported a greater understanding of the medications they were to take after discharge from the hospital, including medication administration instructions and potential adverse effects.