Medication Reconciliation as Part of Admission Management-A Survey to Improve Drug Therapy Safety in a Urology Department.

Complete medication reconciliation during hospital admission is the rationale for further treatment decisions. A consecutive, controlled intervention study was conducted to assess discrepancies in medication reconciliation performed by nurses of the Urology Department compared to the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) established by pharmacists. This study included pre-intervention (control group, CG), nursing training as a pharmaceutical intervention, and post-intervention (intervention group, IG) groups. The discrepancies were classified as "Missing" (not recorded but taken), "Added" (additionally recorded) "Strength" (incorrect documented dosage), "Intake" (incorrect intake time/schedule), "Double" (double prescription), and "Others" (no clear assignment). Additionally, high-risk drug subgroup discrepancies were particularly prevalent and were evaluated. Training success was compared concerning discrepancies in the CG and IG. Generally, the percentage of discrepancies per patient found was lower in the IG than in the CG (78.1% vs. 87.5%, significantly). The category most identified was "Missing" (IG, 33.3% vs. CG, 35.2%). Overall, a discrepancy of 7.4% each (discrepancies: IG, 27 vs. CG, 38) was determined for high-risk drugs while "Missing" occurred (77.8% vs. 52.6%, out of 7.4%). Despite nursing training only partially reducing discrepancies, the implementation of medication reconciliation using BPMH by pharmacists could improve the process, especially for high-risk drugs.

Effectiveness of Clinical Pharmacists-Led Medication Reconciliation to Prevent Medication Discrepancies in Hospitalized Patients: A Non-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Aim: Medication discrepancies are a major safety concern for hospitalized patients and healthcare professionals. Medication Reconciliation (MR) is a widely used tool in different practice settings to ensure the proper use of medications. Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the clinical pharmacists-led MR process in identifying, preventing, and resolving medication discrepancies among hospitalized patients. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective study with an observational and interventional part, conducted at the Internal Medicine Department of a tertiary Hospital in Sudan from January to September 2023. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups, the observation group, in which the routine MR process was performed by doctors (usual care), and the intervention group, in which clinical pharmacists led the MR process. Results: Compared to the usual care, the clinical pharmacists were more efficient in identifying and preventing medication discrepancies (P=0.001). From a total of 1012 medications, clinical pharmacists' interventions contributed to the detection of (39%) equivalent to 2.2 discrepancies per patient, resolving 325 (83%) and preventing (55%) clinically significant discrepancies. Dose discrepancy (43%) was the most common type of identified discrepancies. These interventions were accepted by (98%) of doctors and implemented in (86%) of the total cases. The main predictors of medication discrepancies (P ≤0.05) for patients were the length of hospital stay, patient-hospital transfer, high number of medication histories, and increased number of medications used during hospitalization. Conclusion: Through the implementation of the MR process, the clinical pharmacist's interventions substantially contributed to the detection and resolution of medication discrepancies among hospitalized patients. It is recommended that this intervention be disseminated in more hospitals in Sudan to encourage the implementation of appropriate practices.

Comparing Medication History Capture Rates In-Person Versus Hybrid: A Multisite Pilot Study.

Purpose: Medication history is the method many organizations use to adhere to The Joint Commission's (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) to communicate accurate patient medication information. Literature is sparse comparing the number of medication histories completed in-person versus virtually. Methods: This is a single system, multi-site, retrospective observational study. Patients included were admitted through the Emergency Department during October 2022. The primary aim of this study compared the percent capture rates of medication history between 2 hybrid sites to an in-person site within a health-system. Our secondary objective compared the differences in the 'medication history acuity score' (MHAS), defined as the total number of edits, additions, and deletions made during a medication history. Results: The medication history capture rate at the in-person site was 74% and at the hybrid sites were 91% and 80%. There were no differences in total medications on each medication history between in-person and hybrid (11 [5-16] vs 11 [6-16]; P = .252). There were no differences in changes made on medication histories between in-person and hybrid (4 [1-7] vs 3 [1-7]; P = .595). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that medication history capture rates and MHAS are comparable in both in-person and hybrid environments. This similarity suggests the feasibility of implementing hybrid models for medication history services in diverse healthcare settings, potentially enhancing the capacity of health systems to meet TJC NPSG. These findings indicate that hybrid models could be an effective strategy for healthcare systems to optimize their medication history services, especially in settings with varied patient volumes and site specialties.

Medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Medication errors such as medication discrepancies are known as one of the leading cause of death. Medication discrepancies mostly occur during admission and at time transfer of care and discharge. Medication reconciliation process has pivotal role to avert medication discrepancies and improve patient safety and quality. Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are prone to medication discrepancies due to acute manifestations, simultaneous use of different medicines and having different co-morbidities. This study aimed to determine medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients with ACS. In an observational study, patients with ACS admitted to a specialized Hospital in Baneh County, Kurdistan province during September 2023 and January 2024 were included. Medication reconciliation process was done when the patient was admitted. The history of medicine use was collected through interviews with the patient, their caregivers, as well as observing the medicines that were accompany with the patients. Number and type of unintentional medication discrepancies and related factors were evaluated. A total of 280 ACS patients (mean age: 63.8 ± 14.2, male gender: 59.3%) were included in the study. About 68% had at least 2 underlying diseases. The mean daily medicines taken by the patients during admission were 8.5 ± 1.54. The number (percentage) of unintentional inconsistency was observed in 78 (27.3%), and omission (39.7%) and changes in dosage (20.5%) had the highest frequency of unintentional medication discrepancies, respectively. Cardiovascular agents such as anti-dyslipidemia and antiplatelet had the highest frequency of unintentional medication discrepancies. The number of underlying diseases and daily medications before hospitalization increase the odds of discrepancies by 2.15 and 1.49 times, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients is relatively common. Unintentional medication discrepancies that have the potential to harm the ACS patients should be given more attention, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation service for patients after discharge from tertiary hospitals to primary care in Singapore: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies commonly occur when patients are transferred between care settings. Despite the presence of medication reconciliation services (MRS), medication discrepancies are still prevalent, which has clinical costs and implications. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of various stakeholders on how the MRS can be optimized in Singapore. METHODS: This is a descriptive qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with 30 participants from the National Healthcare Group, including family physicians (N = 10), pharmacists (N = 10), patients recently discharged from restructured hospitals (N = 7) and their caregivers (N = 3) were conducted. All transcribed interviews were coded independently by three coders and inductive thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: Five core themes were identified. (1) The MRS enhanced healthcare services in various aspects including efficiency and health literacy; (2) There were several challenges in delivering the MRS covering processes, technology and training; (3) Issues with suitable patient selection and follow-up; (4) Barriers to scaling up of MRS that involve various stakeholders, cross-sector integration and environmental restrictions; and finally (5) Role definition of the pharmacist to all the stakeholders. CONCLUSION: This study identified the role of MRS in enhancing healthcare services and explored the challenges encountered in the provision of MRS from family physicians, pharmacists, patients and their caregivers. These findings supported the need for a shift of MRS towards a more comprehensive medication review model. Future improvement work to the MRS can be conducted based on the findings.

Assessment of medication discrepancy, medication appropriateness, and cost analysis among patients with pediatric nephrotic syndrome: An ambispective cohort observational study.

BACKGROUND: Nephrotic syndrome (NS) is a commonly encountered chronic kidney disease in pediatric populations, with South Asian children being at high risk and requiring long-term pharmacological management. Thus, identifying medication discrepancies and evaluating the appropriateness of therapy and its economic burden are vital for inpatient management. The aim of the study was to assess medication reconciliation, medication appropriateness, and cost analysis in NS cases. METHODS: An ambispective cohort observational study was carried out with 150 NS patients where medication discrepancies were identified retrospectively and prospectively using the best possible medication history and following up patients correspondingly. Further, the Medication Appropriateness Index and cost variation analysis were used to assess the prescribed therapy and cost analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Out of 150 patients with NS included, 67.3% were male and the mean age was 7.2 years. In total, 36.7% medication discrepancies were found at baseline and 6% discrepancies at follow-up. The majority of discrepancies were unintentional and due to dosing error both at baseline and follow-up. Further, in only 2% of the patients was there inappropriately prescribed medication, and the majority of patients spent between INR (Indian Rupees) 500 and 1000. CONCLUSION: Chronic conditions like NS require continuous monitoring by the specialist pediatric clinical pharmacist, who can contribute significantly by minimizing the medication discrepancies, by assessing the appropriateness of therapy, and lessening the economic burden.

A quality improvement study on the effect of electronic transmission of a basic discharge medication report on medication discrepancies in patients discharged from the hospital.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies can occur in transitions of care because of a lack of communication between hospitals and community pharmacies. These discrepancies can lead to preventable adverse drug events (ADEs). AIM: To investigate the effect of electronic transmission of the basic discharge medication report on unintentional medication discrepancies observed between this report and the 28-day post-discharge status in the community pharmacy. METHOD: The study took place in a Dutch teaching hospital and 8 community pharmacies. A quality improvement study with a nonrandomized, historically controlled intervention design was performed. The intervention consisted of the electronic transmission of a basic discharge medication report to the community pharmacies. Unintentional medication discrepancies were identified by comparing the basic discharge medication report to the 28-day post-discharge medication record in community pharmacies. The main outcome measure was the proportion of drugs with one or more unintentional discrepancies compared between the historical control group and intervention group, using the chi-square test. Secondary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with one or more unintentional discrepancies. RESULTS: The participants used a total of 1078 drugs in the control group and 862 in the intervention group. The intervention significantly reduced the proportion of drugs with an unintentional discrepancy from 230 out of 1078 in the control group (21.3%) to 149 out of 862 drugs in the intervention group (17.3%; p = 0.025). At patient level, a non-significant increase was seen (62.4-78.8%; p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The electronic transmission of the basic discharge medication report reduced the proportion of drugs with an unintentional discrepancy after discharge, but not the proportion of patients.

[Medication reconciliation: Interests and limits]. / Conciliation médicamenteuse : intérêts et limites.

Admission to hospital is a critical transition point for the continuity of care in medication management. Medication reconciliation can identify and resolve errors due to inaccurate medication histories. The practice of medication reconciliation is securing for the patient because of the medication errors detected with significant clinical impact. Its implementation must comply with the recommendations of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and its deployment is now integrated into the contract for improving the quality and efficiency of care (CAQES). However, although it allows to intercept medication errors, its impact on the length of hospitalization, the rate of readmission and/or death following discharge seems limited. Given the limited human resources to carry out this time-consuming activity, patient prioritization should be considered. Studies on the fate of patients and on the medico-economic issues are also necessary in order to make this activity sustainable.

Adverse drug events during transitions of care : Randomized clinical trial of medication reconciliation at hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: During transitions of care, patient's medications are prone to medication errors. This study evaluated the impact of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at hospital admission on unintentional medication discrepancies and adverse drug events. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 120 adult medical patients hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Slovenia. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-led medication reconciliation was performed on admission, while the control group received usual care. Patient's drug treatment before admission was compared with their admission and inpatient treatment to identify discrepancies. The intention of discrepancies and related adverse drug events were assessed as a consensus of an expert panel. RESULTS: Included patients were elderly (median 72 years) and treated with polypharmacy (median 7 medications). Upon admission, discrepancies and unintentional discrepancies, representing a medication error, were identified in 61.2% (825/1347) and 18.3% (247/1347) of medications, respectively. In the intervention group, only 29.1% (37/127) of unintentional discrepancies were reported to the physicians in person. The majority of admission discrepancies (88%) persisted through hospitalization. Unintentional discrepancies resulted in 51 adverse drug events even during hospitalization. There were no differences between the intervention and control group in the occurrence of unintentional discrepancies (p = 0.481) or adverse drug events (p = 0.801). CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation at hospital admission failed to reduce unintentional discrepancies and adverse drug events, possibly due to its poor integration into clinical practice. Discrepancies resulted in patient harm even during the short period of hospitalization, which warrants the implementation of medication reconciliation at hospital admission.

Medication discrepancy rates and sources upon nursing home intake: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies at nursing home intake increase the risk of drug-related adverse events. Measuring discrepancy incidence rates and locating the origins of discrepancies can assist in identifying information exchange deficits for high-risk medications. OBJECTIVE: To determine class-specific discrepancy rates, to determine discordance between medication lists, and to explore patient and system-level factors associated with medication discrepancies discovered between the first and second medication reconciliations conducted at nursing home intake. METHODS: Medication discrepancy data were prospectively collected from four long-term care facilities over a 9-month period. Medication discrepancies were defined as mismatched prescribing orders between at least two medication history lists. Discrepancy locations were defined as the pairs or triads of facilities between which medication history lists were discordant. Unadjusted logistic regressions were used to identify medication classes with the highest discrepancy rates and patient factors significantly associated with any medication discrepancy. RESULTS: 40.8% of newly admitted or re-admitted residents and 6.3% of medications reviewed had at least one medication discrepancy discovered during the second medication reconciliation conducted at nursing home intake. Residents prescribed fewer than 14 medications were at less risk of discrepancies. Residents with Charlson Comorbidity Index of 5, COPD, HF, anemia or HTN were at greater risk of discrepancies. Respiratory and analgesic medications were twice as likely as other medication classes to be discrepant (OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.4; OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.5). Most discrepancies occurred between hospital and nursing home lists (44.9%), or between the hospital, nursing home, and community pharmacy lists (39.3%) CONCLUSIONS: Given the higher risk of discrepancies within respiratory or analgesics, transitions of care teams need to prioritize residents with respiratory conditions or pain. Although re-admitted residents' increased discrepancy risk is likely due to poorer health status, miscommunications across the nursing home, hospital and community pharmacy require further research to clarify system failures.

Exploring pharmacist involvement in the discharge medicines reconciliation process and information transfer to primary care: an observational study.

Background Medication errors can occur because of incomplete or poorly communicated information at the transition from hospital to community. Following an audit in 2016, a project was undertaken to determine if pharmacists could improve the quality of medication information in discharge summaries by introducing a discharge medication reconciliation process. Pharmacists recorded any changes to the patient's medication in the electronic prescribing system during their inpatient stay and summarised these changes on discharge. Objective To compare medication information in discharge summaries with recognised standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records, and to assess the impact of the pharmacist process on compliance with certain elements of these standards. Setting A 750 bed teaching district general hospital in England. Method A retrospective observational study examining all patient discharge summaries over a 1 week period for compliance to national standards. Main outcome measure The main outcome measures were compliance with standards for medication started, stopped or changed in hospital and any differences between extent of recording this information by doctors and pharmacists. Results Data were collected and analysed for 243 patients, of whom 94 (38.7%) attracted a discharge medicines reconciliation process by a pharmacist. Discharge summaries were compliant with basic standards for changed medication in 42% of patients or 51.4% with the input of a pharmacist. This increase of 9.4% was statistically significant (p = 0.0365). At an enhanced level, pharmacists increased compliance from 39.1 to 46.5%, this did not represent a significant increase (p = 0.0989). Conclusion Pharmacists undertaking a discharge medication reconciliation process significantly improves the quality of discharge summaries.

Implementation of a shared medication list in primary care - a controlled pre-post study of medication discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: Access to medicines information is important when treating patients, yet discrepancies in medication records are common. Many countries are developing shared medication lists across health care providers. These systems can improve information sharing, but little is known about how they affect the need for medication reconciliation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an electronically Shared Medication List (eSML) reduced discrepancies between medication lists in primary care. METHODS: In 2018, eSML was tested for patients in home care who received multidose drug dispensing (MDD) in Oslo, Norway. We followed this transition from the current paper-based medication list to an eSML. Medication lists from the GP, home care service and community pharmacy were compared 3 months before the implementation and 18 months after. MDD patients in a neighbouring district in Oslo served as a control group. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients were included (100 intervention; 89 control). Discrepancies were reduced from 389 to 122 (p <  0.001) in the intervention group, and from 521 to 503 in the control group (p = 0.734). After the implementation, the share of mutual prescription items increased from 77 to 94%. Missing prescriptions for psycholeptics, analgesics and dietary supplements was reduced the most. CONCLUSIONS: The eSML greatly decreases discrepancies between the GP, home care and pharmacy medication lists, but does not eliminate the need for medication reconciliation.

Risk factors associated with unintentional medication discrepancies at admission in an internal medicine department.

At admission, unintentional medication discrepancies (UMDs) can occur and may led to severe adverse events. Some of them are preventable through medication reconciliation (MR). As MR is a time-consuming activity, a better identification of high-risk patients of UMDs is mandatory. The objective was to identify risk factors associated with UMDs at admission in an internal medicine department. This prospective observational study was conducted from April 2017 to June 2019. At admission, inpatients had MR to obtain a complete list of home medications. This list was compared to prescriptions made at admission. All discrepancies were classified as intentional or UMDs. Univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the risk factors associated with UMDs were performed. MR was performed on 1157 patients (70.1 ± 16.8 years old); 550 MR (47.5%) contained at least one UMD. More than half of the UMDs (n = 892, 65.6%) corresponded to drug omission. The univariate analysis showed that age (> 60 years old), "living at home", medication preparation not performed by patient, medication-intake difficulties, number of sources consulted, MR duration, presence of a high-risk drug and the number of home medications were associated with UMDs. In the multivariate analysis, adjusted on the number of sources consulted, independent risk factors were "living at home" and the number of home medications. At admission to an internal medicine department, UMDs were frequent and associated with "living at home" and poly-medication. Our findings might help physicians to identify high-risk patients of UMDs since their admission.

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.

A comparison between medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician and the use of an online personal health record by patients for identifying medication discrepancies in patients' drug lists prior to elective admissions.

AIM: Medication discrepancies (MDs), defined as unexplained differences among medication regimens, cause important public health problems with clinical and economic consequences. Medication reconciliation (MR) reduces the risk of MDs, but is time consuming and its success relies on the quality of different information sources. Online personalized health records (PHRs) may overcome these drawbacks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the level of agreement of identified MDs between traditional MR and an online PHR and the correctness of the identified MDs with a PHR. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at the cardiology, neurology, internal medicine and pulmonary department of the Amphia Hospital, the Netherlands. Two weeks prior to a planned admission all patients received an invitation from a PHR to update their medication file derived from the Nationwide Medication Record System (NMRS). At admission MR was performed with all by a pharmacy technician, who created the best possible medication history (BPMH) based on the NMRS data and an interview. MDs were determined as discrepancies between the available information from the NMRS and the input and alterations patients or pharmacy technician made. The number, correctness of patients' alterations, type and severity of identified MDs were analysed. RESULTS: Of 488 patients approached, 155 (31.8 %) patients who both used the PHR and had received MR were included. The mean number of MDs identified with MR and PHR was 6.2 (SD 4.3) and 4.7 (SD 3.7), respectively. 82.1 % of the drug information noted by the patient in the PHR was correct compared to the BPMH and 98.6 % had no clinically relevant differences between the lists. CONCLUSION: Patients who used an online PHR can relatively accurately record a list of their medication. Further research is required to explore the level of agreement and the correctness of a PHR in other (larger) hospital(departments).

Medication reconciliation in the geriatric unit: impact on the maintenance of post-hospitalization prescriptions.

Background Medication reconciliation prevents medication errors at care transition points. This process improves communication with general practitioners regarding the reasons for therapeutic changes, allowing those changes to be maintained after hospital discharge. Objective To investigate the impact of medication reconciliation in geriatrics on the sustainability of therapeutic optimization after hospital discharge. Setting This study was conducted in a geriatric unit in a University Hospital Centre in France. Method This was a retrospective study. For 6 months, all patients over 65 years who underwent the process of medication reconciliation performed by a clinical hospital pharmacist and a physician at admission and discharge, were included. A comparison between drug prescriptions at hospital discharge and the first prescription made outside the hospital was made to identify any differences. Main outcome measure The main outcome measures were the provision of the results of the medication reconciliation performed in the hospital to the relevant general practitioner, the subsequent acceptance of that information, the type of medication discrepancies one month after discharge and the therapeutic classes affected by the modifications. Results Among the 112 patients, medication reconciliation allowed us to identify and correct 87 unintentional discrepancies at admission (88% corrected) and 54 at discharge (92% corrected). Patients were discharged to homes or nursing homes (61%), geriatric rehabilitation units (38%) or psychiatric clinics (1%). A general practitioner wrote the first prescription renewal a mean of 36 ± 23 days after discharge, having been made aware of the medication reconciliation in only 24% of the cases (received and taken into account). The impact was a decrease in the number of patients with at least one discrepancy. Twenty-five percent of general practitioners who were aware about the medication reconciliation process accepted all therapeutic changes, while only 7% of those who were not informed did so (p = 0.02). The number of medication discrepancies observed was correlated with the number of medications for which prescriptions were renewed (p < 0.01). Conclusion Medication reconciliation involving therapeutic optimization and the justification of changes is essential to ensure the safety of the prescriptions written for patients. However, its impact after discharge is hampered by the fact that the results are often not received or taken into account by general practitioners. Taking medication reconciliation into account was associated with a significant increase in prescriptions that maintained therapeutic changes made in the hospital, confirming the positive impact of communication between care providers on therapeutic optimization.

Medication discrepancies in hospitalized cancer patients: Do we need medication reconciliation?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and point out the number and types of medication discrepancies among cancer patients admitted to Jordan University Hospital. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional observational study that was conducted on cancer patients in the internal medicine department at Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan. During a period of six months, a convenience sample of cancer patients was recruited, and their medical records were reviewed to collect information regarding their demographics, clinical, and medication information. Also, patients' Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) was collected using different methods, and a comparison between patients' BPMH and their current medications was conducted where discrepancies were recognized. RESULTS: Seventy-eight medical records were reviewed, with a total of 166 discrepancies identified. Of these, 110 discrepancies (66.3%) were unintentional. Exactly 67.9% of the study participants (n = 53) were found to have at least one unintentional discrepancy, with the most common type being omissions (n = 71, 65.1%,) and the second most common type being additions (n = 16, 14.7%). Most of the discrepancies ranged between low to moderate in severity. Fifty-six (33.7%) intentional undocumented discrepancies (documentation errors) were also identified. CONCLUSION: This study revealed a high rate of medication discrepancies among hospitalized cancer patients, most commonly unintentional omissions. Nevertheless, undocumented intentional discrepancies can equally harm this critically ill population. So, do we need medication reconciliation in cancer patients? Yes. Cancer patients are critically ill, and therefore more effort should be paid towards implementing medication reconciliation services in their treatment plan.

Prevalence of medication discrepancies in pediatric patients transferred between hospital wards.

Background Children are more susceptible to harm from medication errors and adverse drug reactions when compared to adults. Such events may occur from medication discrepancies while transitioning patients throughout the healthcare system. Contributing factors include medication discontinuity and lack of information by the healthcare team. Objective To analyze the prevalence of medication discrepancies in transition points of care in a pediatric department. Setting Pediatric department of a public hospital in Northeast Brazil. Method A cross-sectional study was carried out from August 2017 to March 2018. Data collection consisted of the following steps: collection of sociodemographic data, clinical interview with the patient's caregiver, registration of patient prescriptions, and evaluation of medical records. Medication discrepancies were classified as intentional and unintentional. The unintentional medication discrepancies were classified as omission of medication, therapeutic duplicity, and differences in dose, frequency, or route of administration. Main outcomes measure Discrepancy profile identified at admission, internal transfer and hospital discharge. Results Among the 114 patients included in the study, 85 (74.5%) patients had at least one unintentional medication discrepancy, of which 16 (14.0%) patients presented medication discrepancies at hospital admission, 42 (36.8%) patients at internal transfer, and 52 (45.6%) patients during discharge. Omission of medication represented 20 (74.1%) errors at admission, 26 (37.7%) errors at internal transfer, and 80 (100.0%) errors at hospital discharge. Conclusions The main transition points of care where unintentional discrepancies occurred in the studied pediatric department were at internal transfer and hospital discharge, with omission being the most common type of unintentional discrepancy.

The General Practice and Residential Aged Care Facility Concordance of Medication (GRACEMED) study.

BACKGROUND: The lack of interoperable IT systems between residential aged care facilities (RACF) and general practitioners (GP) in primary care settings in Australia introduces the potential for medication discrepancies and other medication errors. The aim of the GRACEMED study is to determine the extent and potential severity of medication discrepancies between general practice and RACFs, and identify factors associated with medication discrepancies. METHODS: A cross sectional study of medication discrepancies between RACF medication orders and GP medication lists was conducted in the Sydney North Health Network, Australia. A random sample of RACF residents was included from practice lists provided by the general practices. RACF medication orders and GP medication lists for the included residents were compared, and medication discrepancies between the two sources were identified and characterised in terms of discrepancy type, potential for harm and associated factors. RESULTS: 31 GPs and 203 residents were included in the study. A total of 1777 discrepancies were identified giving an overall discrepancy rate of 72.6 discrepancies for every 100 medications. Omissions were the most common discrepancy type (35.2%,) followed by dose discrepancies (34.4%) and additions (30.4%). 48.5% of residents had a discrepancy with the potential to result in moderate harm and 9.8% had a discrepancy with the potential for severe harm. Number of medications prescribed was the only factor associated with medication discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Increased use of systems that allow information sharing and improved interoperability of clinical information is urgently needed to address medication safety issues experienced by RACF residents.