Medication Reconciliation during Transitions of Care Across Institutions: A Quantitative Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Medication discrepancies between clinical systems may pose a patient safety hazard. In this paper, we identify challenges and quantify medication discrepancies across transitions of care. METHODS: We used structured clinical data and free-text hospital discharge summaries to compare active medications' lists at four time points: preadmission (outpatient), at-admission (inpatient), at-discharge (inpatient), and postdischarge (outpatient). Medication lists were normalized to RxNorm. RxNorm identifiers were further processed using the RxNav API to identify the ingredient. The specific drugs and ingredients from inpatient and outpatient medication lists were compared. RESULTS: Using RxNorm drugs, the median percentage intersection when comparing active medication lists within the same electronic health record system ranged between 94.1 and 100% indicating substantial overlap. Similarly, when using RxNorm ingredients the median percentage intersection was 94.1 to 100%. In contrast, the median percentage intersection when comparing active medication lists across EHR systems was significantly lower (RxNorm drugs: 6.1-7.1%; RxNorm ingredients: 29.4-35.0%) indicating that the active medication lists were significantly less similar (p < 0.05).Medication lists in the same EHR system are more similar to each other (fewer discrepancies) than medication lists in different EHR systems when comparing specific RxNorm drug and the more general RxNorm ingredients at transitions of care. Transitions of care that require interoperability between two EHR systems are associated with more discrepancies than transitions where medication changes are expected (e.g., at-admission vs. at-discharge). Challenges included lack of access to structured, standardized medication data across systems, and difficulty distinguishing medications from orderable supplies such as lancets and diabetic test strips. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges to medication normalization, there are opportunities to identify and assist with medication reconciliation across transitions of care between institutions.

Exploring Willingness of Elder Chinese in Houston to Participate in Clinical Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inadequate minority participation in clinical research can threaten the applicability and strength of scientific findings. Previous research suggests that trial participation rates are lowest among Asian Americans, compared to other groups. This study explored barriers to clinical research participation among elder Chinese living in Houston, Texas. Additionally we administered the Trust in Medical Researchers Scale (TIMRS), used previously in researching trust in medical researchers as related to research participation. DESIGN: In this mixed methods study, a semi-structured interview, including the TIMRS were administered to 30 adults of Chinese ancestry aged 50 years or older recruited from a Chinese community center. Interviews were conducted in English, Mandarin and Cantonese and independently coded and analyzed using thematic content analysis. TIMRS scores were calculated for participants. RESULTS: Participants were 70% female, 70% were 60 or elder, all were foreign born and on average lived in the US for 21.8 years. Participants perceived risks to research participation and preferred language concordant research staff. Interviewees were more willing to participate if they perceived personal and community health-related benefits. The overall TIMRS score was 23.9 (±5.0), lower than the overall TIMRS for Whites in a previous study (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The barriers and facilitators to research participation confirmed previous research among Asians. Our participant TIMRS scores were consistent with decreased levels of trust observed in the original TIMRS study for African Americans as compared and lower than Whites. Employing strategies that utilize language concordant staff who build trust with participants may aid in recruiting elder Chinese, especially if the research is personally relevant to those being recruited.

Reporting guidelines: optimal use in preventive medicine and public health.

Numerous reporting guidelines are available to help authors write higher-quality papers more efficiently. Almost 200 are listed on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network's website and they vary in authority, usability, and breadth, making it difficult to decide which one(s) to use. This paper provides consistent information about guidelines for preventive medicine and public health and a framework and sequential approach for selecting them. The EQUATOR guidelines were reviewed for relevance to target audiences; selected guidelines were classified as "core" (frequently recommended) or specialized, and the latter were grouped by their focus. Core and specialized guidelines were coded for indicators of authority (simultaneous publication in multiple journals, rationale, scientific background supporting each element, expertise of designers, permanent website/named group), usability (presence of checklists and examples of good reporting), and breadth (article sections covered). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Selected guidelines are presented in four tables arranged to facilitate selection: core guidelines, all of which pertain to major research designs; guidelines for additional study designs; topical guidelines; and guidelines for particular article sections. A flow diagram provides an overview. The framework and sequential approach will enable authors as well as editors, peer reviewers, researchers, and systematic reviewers to make optimal use of available guidelines to improve the transparency, clarity, and rigor of manuscripts and research protocols and the efficiency in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.