Medication reconciliation: time to save? A cross-sectional study from one acute hospital.

PURPOSE: Medication errors during transitional care are an important patient safety issue. Medication reconciliation is an established intervention to reduce such errors. Current evidence has not demonstrated an associated reduction in healthcare costs, however, with complexity and resource intensity being identified as issues. The aims of this study were to examine an existing process of medication reconciliation in terms of time taken, to identify factors associated with additional time, and to determine if additional time is associated with detecting errors of clinical significance. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. Issues arising during medication reconciliation incurring a time burden additional to the usual process were logged and quantified by pharmacists. Regression analyses investigated associations between patient characteristics and clinically significant errors and additional time. Cost for additional time in terms of hospital pharmacist salary was calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. Having a personal record of medication at admission (OR 3.30, 95% CI: (1.05 to 10.42), p = 0.004) was a significant predictor of additional time. No significant associations were found between the occurrence of clinically significant error and additional time (p > 0.05). The most common reason for additional time was clarifying issues pertaining to primary care medication information. Projected annual 5-year costs for the mean additional time of 3.75 min were €1.8-1.9 million. CONCLUSIONS: Spending additional time on medication reconciliation is associated with economic burden and may not yield benefit in terms of capturing clinically significant errors. There is a need to improve communication of medication information between primary and secondary care.

Metabolic Syndrome in Adults Receiving Clozapine; The Need for Pharmacist Support.

People who are diagnosed with treatment resistant schizophrenia (TRS) are likely to have clozapine as a therapeutic management option. There is a high prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients receiving clozapine. To mitigate against this, monitoring of weight, waist circumference, lipid profile, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG) and blood pressure (BP) is recommended. The aims of this study were to examine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and whether any variables were correlated with its development, and to highlight any opportunities for the pharmacist to offer support. This study was conducted in an urban hospital and its associated Clozapine Clinic in Cork, Ireland. A retrospective audit assessed the prevalence of metabolic syndrome using the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or more, registered with the Clozapine Clinic, and had the capacity to provide informed consent. All data were entered into Microsoft® Excel ® (Microsoft Corporation) and further statistical analysis was undertaken using R, t-tests, Fisher's Exact Test and Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate, and p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of 145 patients (32% female; mean age (SD) 45.3 (±11.7) years; 86.2% living independently/in family home), nearly two thirds (n = 86, 59.3%) were diagnosed with metabolic syndrome. The mean age of participants with metabolic syndrome was 44.4 years (SD = 10.8), similar to the 46.6 years (SD = 12.8) for those without. Variables that were identified to be statistically significantly associated with metabolic syndrome included waist circumference, weight, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), BP, FBG and HbA1c. The high incidence of metabolic syndrome in this patient population highlights the need for continued physical health monitoring of these patients to ameliorate the risk of developing metabolic syndrome.

Medication Reviews by a Clinical Pharmacist at an Irish University Teaching Hospital.

Purpose: Pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitals have shown improvement in patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence and nature of pharmacist interventions (PIs) following a medication review in an Irish teaching hospital. Methods: PIs were recorded over a six-month period in 2015. PIs were assessed by a panel of healthcare professionals (n = 5) to estimate the potential of adverse drug events (ADEs). Descriptive statistics were used for the variables and the chi square test for independence was used to analyse for any association between the variables. Results: Of the 1216 patients (55.8% female; median age 68 years (interquartile range 24 years)) who received a medication review, 313 interventions were identified in 213 patients. 412 medicines were associated with PIs, of which drugs for obstructive airway disease (n = 82), analgesics (n = 56), and antibacterial products for systemic use (n = 50) were the most prevalent. A statistically significant association was found between PI and patient's age ≥65 years (p = 0.000), as well as female gender (p = 0.037). A total of 60.7% of the PIs had a medium or high likelihood of causing an ADE. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led medication review in a hospital setting prevented ADEs. Patients ≥65 years of age and female patients benefited the most from the interventions.