Factors associated with disease knowledge and attitude among ambulatory patients with type 2 diabetes - a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a multifactorial disease state that requires adequate patient monitoring for improved health outcomes. Diabetes knowledge and attitude, and associated factors such as medication adherence, medication discrepancy, health literacy, and glycemic control were evaluated in this study. The selected factors were also compared with diabetes knowledge and attitude. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out among ambulatory diabetes patients in three tertiary healthcare facilities in Nigeria. An interviewer-administered semi-structured questionnaire was utilized for data collection. Data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 188 diabetes patients participated in the study; 51 (27.1%) at the Federal Medical Center, Abeokuta, 69 (36.7%) at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, and 68 (36.2%) at the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin. One hundred and twelve (59.6%) female patients participated in the study and patients' average age was 58.69 ± 13.68 years. Medication discrepancy was observed among 101 (53.7%) patients. One hundred and three (54.8%), 47 (25.0%) and 38 (20.2%) had high, medium, and low medication adherence, respectively. Ninety-one (48.4%) had high health literacy. Mean diabetes knowledge score was 14.64 ± 2.55 points out of a maximum obtainable score of 18 points. Mean diabetes attitude of patients was 62.50 ± 6.86 points out of a maximum obtainable score of 70 points. Significant positive association was observed between diabetes knowledge and health literacy (Beta = 0.021, p = 0.029). Diabetes knowledge was higher in patients with higher level of formal education (p = 0.046), higher diabetes attitude (p < 0.001) and high health literacy (p = 0.002). Patients' diabetes attitude was higher in individuals older than 60 years of age (p = 0.029), and those with high health literacy (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The diabetes patients displayed good disease knowledge, attitude and medication adherence. Average levels of health literacy and medication discrepancy was observed among the patients. Significant differences were observed between patients' diabetes knowledge and level of formal education, diabetes attitude, health literacy and age. Patients' health literacy was significantly associated with diabetes knowledge.

Identifying older inpatients at high risk of unintentional medication discrepancies: a classification tree analysis.

Unintentional medication discrepancies at admission are differences between the best possible medication history and the prescribed treatment at admission, and are associated with adverse outcomes, particularly in older people. This study aimed to identify the clinical profiles of geriatric inpatients with unintentional medication discrepancies at hospital admission. A classification tree Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) analysis was conducted to assess those patients' profiles and characteristics that were associated with a higher risk of unintentional medication discrepancies. One-hundred and thirty consecutive older patients admitted to acute care (87 ± 5 years old; 61.8% women) were assessed. The CHAID analysis retrieved 5 clinical profiles of older inpatients with a risk of up to 94.4% for unintentional medication discrepancies. These profiles were determined based on combinations of three characteristics: use of eye drops, frequent falls (≥ 1/year), and admission due to urgent hospitalization. These easily measurable clinical characteristics may be helpful as a supportive measure to improve pharmacological care.

Effect of educational intervention on medication reconciliation practice of hospital pharmacists in a developing country - A non-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is an evidence-based practice that reduces medication-related harm to patients. This study evaluated the effect of educational intervention on medication reconciliation practice of pharmacists among ambulatory diabetes and hypertensive patients. METHODS: A non-randomized clinical trial on medication reconciliation practice was carried out among 85 and 61 pharmacists at the intervention site and control site, respectively. Medication reconciliation was carried out among 334 (intervention-183; control-151) diabetes and/or hypertensive patients by the principal investigator to indirectly evaluate pharmacists' baseline medication reconciliation practice at both sites. A general educational intervention was carried out among intervention pharmacists. Medication reconciliation was carried out by the principal investigator among another cohort of 96 (intervention-46; control-50) and 90 (intervention-44; control-46) patients at three and six months postintervention, respectively, to indirectly assess pharmacists' postintervention medication reconciliation practice. Thereafter, a focused educational intervention was carried out among 15 of the intervention pharmacists. Three experts in clinical pharmacy analysed the medication reconciliation form filled by the 15 pharmacists after carrying out medication reconciliation on another cohort of 140 patients, after the focused intervention. Data was summarized with descriptive (frequency, percentage, mean ± standard deviation) and inferential (Pearson product-moment correlations analysis, independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA) statistics with level of significance set at p<0.05. KEY FINDINGS: Baseline medication reconciliation practice was poor at both sites. Post-general educational intervention, medication discrepancy was significantly reduced by 42.8% at the intervention site (p<0.001). At the intervention site, a significant increase of 54.3% was observed in patients bringing their medication packs for clinic appointments making medication reconciliation easier (p=0.003), at 6-months postintervention. Thirty-five, 66 and 48 drug therapy problems were detected by 31 (43.1%), 33 (66.0%) and 32 (71.1%) intervention pharmacists at 1-, 3- and 6-month post-general educational intervention, respectively. Post-focused educational intervention, out of a total of 695 medications prescribed, 75 (10.8%) medication discrepancies were detected and resolved among 42 (30%) patients by the 15 pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: The educational interventions improved pharmacists' medication reconciliation practice at the intervention site. It is expected that this research would help create awareness on medication reconciliation among pharmacists in developing countries, with a view to reducing medication-related patient harm.

Unintended medication discrepancies and associated factors upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards: identified through medication reconciliation.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a widely accepted tool for the identification and resolution of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the magnitude and associated factors of UMD identified through medication reconciliation upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards. METHODS: Prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the internal medicine wards of Felege Hiwot and Tibebe Ghion comprehensive specialized hospitals in Bahir Dar city, Northwest Ethiopia, from May 01 to July 30, 2021. Data were collected by using a data abstraction format prepared based on standard MedRec tools and previous studies on medication discrepancy. Pharmacists-led MedRec was made by following the WHO High5s "retroactive medication reconciliation model". SPSS® (IBM Corporation) version 25.0 was used to analyze the data with descriptive and inferential statistics. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with UMD. A statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05. RESULTS: Among 635 adult patients, 248 (39.1%) of them had at least one UMD. The most frequent types of UMDs were omission (41.75%) and wrong dose (21.9%). The majority (75.3%) of pharmacists' interventions were accepted. Polypharmacy at admission (p-value < 0.001), age ≥ 65 (p-value = 0.001), a unit increase on the number of comorbidities (p-value = 0.008) and information sources used for MedRec (p-value < 0.001), and medium (p-value = 0.019) and low adherence (p-value < 0.001) were significantly associated with UMD. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of UMD upon patient admission to the internal medicine wards was considerably high. Omission and the wrong dose of medication were common. Older age, polypharmacy, low and medium adherence, and an increase in the number of comorbidities and information sources used for MedRec are significantly associated with UMDs. Pharmacists' interventions were mostly acceptable. Thus, the implementation of pharmacists-led MedRec in the two hospitals is indispensable for patient safety.

Improving safety and efficacy with pharmacist medication reconciliation in orthopedic joint surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of medication reconciliation (MR), through avoidance of unintentional medication discrepancies, on enhanced recovery after surgery programs designed for older patients undergoing orthopedic joint surgery.  METHOD: Our study was divided into two phases. In the first phase, MR was performed for elderly patients undergoing orthopedic joint surgery. Types of medication discrepancies and their potential risks were analyzed. In the second phase, a controlled study was conducted in a subgroup of patients diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and who were scheduled for two-stage revision. The primary goal was to investigate the impact of MR on length of stay for the first stage. The secondary goal was to investigate the time between the first admission and the reimplantation of a new prosthesis, the number of readmissions within 30 days, hospitalization cost. RESULTS: A total of 506 medication discrepancies were identified in the included 260 patients. Intolerance had the highest incidence (n = 131, 25.7%). The Bayliff tool showed that 71.9% were assessed as level 2 risk, and 10.3% had a life-threatening risk. For patients with PJI, MR reduced the average length of stay in the first stage (16.3 days vs. 20.7 days, P = 0.03) and shortened the time (57.3 days vs. 70.5 days, P = 0.002) between the first admission and the reimplantation of a new prosthesis. The average cost of hospital stay ($8589.6 vs. $10,422.6, P = 0.021), antibiotics ($1052.2 vs. $1484.7, P = 0.032) and other medications ($691.5 vs. $1237.6, P = 0.014) per patient at our hospital were significantly decreased. Notably, significant improvements in patient satisfaction were seen in participants in the MR group. CONCLUSION: Through MR by clinical pharmacists, medication discrepancies within the orthopedic ERAS program could be identified. For patients with periprosthetic joint infection, better patient satisfaction and clinical and economical outcomes can be achieved with this method.

Medication Reconciliation: The Foundation of Medication Safety for Patients Requiring Dialysis.

Medication-related problems are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Patients requiring dialysis are at heightened risk for adverse drug reactions because of the prevalence of polypharmacy, multiple chronic conditions, and altered (but not well understood) medication pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics inherent to kidney failure. To minimize preventable medication-related problems, health care providers need to prioritize medication safety for this population. The cornerstone of medication safety is medication reconciliation. We present a case highlighting adverse outcomes when medication reconciliation is insufficient at care transitions. We review available literature on the prevalence of medication discrepancies worldwide. We also explain effective medication reconciliation and the practical considerations for implementation of effective medication reconciliation in dialysis units. In light of the addition of medication reconciliation requirements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, this review also provides guidance to dialysis unit leadership for improving current medication reconciliation practices. Prioritization of medication reconciliation has the potential to positively affect rates of medication-related problems, as well as medication adherence, health care costs, and quality of life.

Improving Medication History at Admission Utilizing Pharmacy Students and Technicians: A Pharmacy-Driven Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Because of the frequency of medication errors related to care transitions, patient-safety initiatives have recently focused on improving the patient medication list. Pharmacy student and technician participation in the medication-history process has been shown to improve the quality of medication histories. To improve patient care, a pharmacy-driven medication-history service utilizing a unique hybrid team of pharmacy students and technicians was launched at Inova Loudoun Hospital (ILH). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the service was to improve patient safety and therapy by providing the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) for admitted acute-care patients. METHODS: Data for the medication-history service was collected for six months from July 2015 to January 2016. The service included pharmacy technicians and fourth-year pharmacy students using the BPMH approach to verify patients' allergies, medications, doses, and frequencies, and to ensure optimal documentation in the Electronic Health Record (EHR). Data on types and numbers of discrepancies and interventions were collected during the process. Readmission rates for the study group were calculated and compared to readmission rates for all patients. RESULTS: Out of 4,070 patients interviewed, 77.7% (3,162) had at least one discrepancy in their medication list. Per patient, the average number of medications was 7.47, with an average of 1.8 discrepancies. Pharmacy students identified more discrepancies per patient than pharmacy technicians, 2.3 versus 1.5, respectively. Readmission rates for patients interviewed by the medication-history team was lower than for all patients during the same period, as well as for all patients during the same period in the previous year. CONCLUSION: This pharmacy-driven medication-history service, staffed with pharmacy technicians and students using a structured BPMH approach, increased the accuracy of home-medication lists on patient admission. The service demonstrated a difference in the types of interventions provided by pharmacy students and technicians. Readmission rates were also lower for patients with completed BPMH.

Medication reconciliation at two teaching hospitals in Australia: a missed opportunity?

Medication reconciliation prevents medication related harm at patient hospitalisation. This cross-sectional study demonstrated that the Hunter New England Health Admission Medication History Form that supports the two processes is underutilised in two hospitals in New South Wales with many doctors unaware of the form and pharmacists facing understaffing and time constraints for completing it. Triaging of patients and, more collaboration between doctors and pharmacists are required for efficient in-hospital medication reconciliation.

The medication reconciliation process and classification of discrepancies: a systematic review.

AIMS: Medication reconciliation is a part of the medication management process and facilitates improved patient safety during care transitions. The aims of the study were to evaluate how medication reconciliation has been conducted and how medication discrepancies have been classified. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Web of Science (WOS), in accordance with the PRISMA statement up to April 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the types of medication discrepancy found through the medication reconciliation process and contained a classification system for discrepancies. Data were extracted by one author based on a predefined table, and 10% of included studies were verified by two authors. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately one-third of included studies (n = 35, 36.8%) utilized a 'gold' standard medication list. The majority of studies (n = 57, 60%) used an empirical classification system and the number of classification terms ranged from 2 to 50 terms. Whilst we identified three taxonomies, only eight studies utilized these tools to categorize discrepancies, and 11.6% of included studies used different patient safety related terms rather than discrepancy to describe the disagreement between the medication lists. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that clear and consistent information on prevalence, types, causes and contributory factors of medication discrepancy are required to develop suitable strategies to reduce the risk of adverse consequences on patient safety. Therefore, to obtain that information, we need a well-designed taxonomy to be able to accurately measure, report and classify medication discrepancies in clinical practice.

Medication Complexity, Medication Number, and Their Relationships to Medication Discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation to identify discrepancies is a National Patient Safety Goal. Increasing medication number and complex medication regimens are associated with discrepancies, nonadherence, and adverse events. The Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) integrates information about dosage form, dosing frequency, and additional directions. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the association of MRCI scores and medication number with medication discrepancies and commissions, a discrepancy subtype. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample of 104 ambulatory care patients seen from April 2010 to July 2011 within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Primary outcomes included any medication discrepancy and commissions. Primary exposures included MRCI scores and medication number. Multivariable logistic regression models associated MRCI scores and medication number with discrepancies. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves provided discrepancy thresholds. RESULTS: For the 104 patients analyzed, the median MRCI score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] = 14-43), and the median medication number was 8 (IQR = 5-13); 60% of patients had any discrepancy, whereas 36% had a commission. In adjusted analyses, patients with MRCI scores ≥25 or medication number ≥8 were more likely to have commissions (odds ratio [OR] = 3.64, 95% CI = 1.41-9.41; OR = 4.51, 95% CI = 1.73-11.73, respectively). The unadjusted ROC threshold for commissions was 36 for MRCI (sensitivity, 59%; specificity, 82%) and 9 for medication number (sensitivity 68%; specificity 67%). CONCLUSION: Patients with either MRCI scores ≥25 or ≥8 medications were more likely to have commissions. Given equal performance in predicting discrepancies, the efficiency and simplicity of medication number supports its use in identifying patients for intensive medication review beyond medication reconciliation.

The Effect of Health Literacy on Medication Knowledge and Medication Discrepancy in Chinese Americans.

Background. Functional health literacy (FHL) is increasingly recognized as a useful predictor of health outcomes in different populations. However, the effect of FHL on medication knowledge and medication discrepancy in Chinese Americans is not well defined. Objectives. To examine the effects of FHL on medication knowledge and medication discrepancy in Chinese American patients. Methods. This was a cross-sectional study conducted at an academic internal medicine clinic. The Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults was used to assess participants' FHL. Data for patients' demographic information, medication knowledge, and medication discrepancy (direction discrepancy and name discrepancy) were collected through patient interviews and chart reviews. The primary outcome was medication knowledge of purpose and the secondary outcomes included medication direction discrepancy and medication name discrepancy. Results. Of the 158 Chinese American patients who participated in the study, 54% had adequate FHL. More participants with adequate FHL had correct medication knowledge compared to participants with inadequate FHL (87% vs 56%, respectively, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.2-9.7). Fewer participants with adequate FHL had medication direction discrepancy compared to those with inadequate FHL (42% vs 62%, odds ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval = 0.06-0.55). Both adequate and inadequate FHL groups had high prevalence of medication name discrepancy (77% vs 89%) even though the between-group difference was insignificant. Conclusions. Adequate FHL among Chinese American patients is significantly associated with increased medication knowledge of purpose and decreased medication direction discrepancy. Both adequate and inadequate FHL groups had high prevalence of medication name discrepancy.

Comparison between proactive and retroactive models of medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model. RESULTS: 556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.

Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-conducted Medication Reconciliation at Admission and Discharge on Medication Safety in Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Most studies have focused on the impact of medication reconciliation on one of the points of hospital admission or discharge. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of medication reconciliation at both admission and discharge on medication safety in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, cohort study conducted in a tertiary care cardiovascular hospital from October 2022 to March 2023 on patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were considered eligible if they were taking at least five chronic medications prior to hospital admission. Medication reconciliation was carried out for the study patients by a clinical pharmacy team both at admission and discharge. Further, the study patients also received comprehensive discharge counseling as well as post-discharge follow-up and monitoring. RESULTS: Medication reconciliation was applied for 129 patients at admission and 118 of them at discharge. The mean time needed for medication reconciliation presses was 32 min per patient on admission and 22min per patient on discharge. Unintentional medication discrepancies were relatively common both at admission and discharge in the study participants, but compared to admission, discrepancies were less frequent at discharge (178 versus 72). Based on the consensus review, about 30% of identified errors detected at both admission and discharge were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm to the patient, and most of the clinical pharmacists' recommendations on unintended discrepancies were accepted by physicians and resulted in changes in medication orders (more than 80%). Further, the majority of the participants were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the clinical pharmacy services provided to them during hospitalization and after hospital discharge (89.90%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that heart failure patients are vulnerable to medication discrepancies both at admission and discharge and implementing a comprehensive medication reconciliation by clinical pharmacists could be helpful in improving medication safety in these patients.

Impact of Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting (PPMC) on Medication Discrepancies and Errors: A Pragmatic Evaluation of an Emergency Department-Based Process Redesign.

Medication errors are more prevalent in settings with acutely ill patients and heavy workloads, such as in an emergency department (ED). A pragmatic, controlled study compared partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC) (pharmacist-documented best-possible medication history [BPMH] followed by clinical discussion between a pharmacist and medical officer to co-develop a treatment plan and chart medications) with early BPMH (pharmacist-documented BPMH followed by medical officer-led traditional medication charting) and usual care (traditional medication charting approach without a pharmacist-collected BPMH in ED). Medication discrepancies were undocumented differences between medication charts and medication reconciliation. An expert panel assessed the discrepancies' clinical significance, with 'unintentional' discrepancies deemed 'errors'. Fewer patients in the PPMC group had at least one error (3.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1% to 5.8%) than in the early BPMH (49.4%; 95% CI: 42.5% to 56.3%) and usual care group (61.4%; 95% CI: 56.3% to 66.7%). The number of patients who need to be treated with PPMC to prevent at least one high/extreme error was 4.6 (95% CI: 3.4 to 6.9) and 4.0 (95% CI: 3.1 to 5.3) compared to the early BPMH and usual care group, respectively. PPMC within ED, incorporating interdisciplinary discussion, reduced clinically significant errors compared to early BPMH or usual care.

Obtaining the Best Possible Medication History at Hospital Admission: Description of a Pharmacy Technician-Driven Program to Identify Medication Discrepancies.

PURPOSE: Describe the process of obtaining the best possible medication history (BPMH) by Certified Pharmacy Technicians (CPhTs) on hospital admission to identify medication discrepancies. METHODS: Cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between December 2016 and June 2017 at a quaternary center in New York, including all patients 18 years and older admitted to the medicine service through the Emergency Department (ED) and seen by a CPhT. CPhTs obtained the BPMH using a systematic approach involving a standardized interview, checking medications with secondary sources and updating the electronic health record (EHR). Medication discrepancies were identified and categorized by type and risk. Summary statistics were provided as average and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Multivariable regression was used to test for associations between patient factors and presence of a medication discrepancy. RESULTS: Of the 3,087 patient visits, the average age was 69 (SD 17.8), 54% were female (n = 1652) and 65% white (n = 2017); comorbidity score breakdown was: 0 (25%, n = 757), 1-2 (33%, n = 1023), 3-4 (23%, n = 699), > 4 (20%, n = 608). The average number of home and discharge medications were 10 (SD 6.1) and 10 (SD 5.4), respectively. The average time spent obtaining the BPMH was 30.6 minutes (SD 12.9). 69% of patients (n = 2130) had at least 1 discrepancy with an average of 4.2 (SD 4.6), of which 43% (n = 920) included high-risk medications. Having a medication discrepancy was associated with a higher number of home medications (p < 0.0001) comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and source of information (p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: Obtaining the BPMH by CPhTs on hospital admission frequently identifies medication discrepancies. Further studies are needed to evaluate the association between obtaining the BPMH and clinical outcomes.

Accuracy of best possible medication histories by pharmacy students: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is an effective strategy to prevent medication errors upon hospital admission and requires obtaining a patient's best possible mediation history (BPMH). However, obtaining a BPMH is time-consuming and pharmacy students may assist pharmacists in this task. AIM: To evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the pharmacy student-obtained BPMH compared to the pharmacist-obtained BPMH. METHOD: Twelve final-year pharmacy students were trained to obtain BPMHs upon admission at 2 tertiary hospitals and worked in pairs. Each student pair completed one 8-h shift each week for 8 weeks. Students obtained BPMHs for patients taking 5 or more medications. A pharmacist then independently obtained and checked the student BPMH from the same patient for accuracy. Deviations were determined between student-obtained and pharmacist-obtained BMPH. An accurate BPMH was defined as only having no-or-low risk medication deviations. RESULTS: The pharmacy students took BPMHs for 91 patients. Of these, 65 patients (71.4%) had an accurate BPMH. Of the 1170 medications included in patients' BPMH, 1118 (95.6%) were deemed accurate. For the student-obtained BPMHs, they were more likely to be accurate for patients who were older (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001), had fewer medications (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.97; p = 0.02), and if students used two source types (administration and supplier) to obtain the BPMH (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.09-2.50; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: It is suitable for final-year pharmacy students to be incorporated into the BPMHs process and for their BPMHs to be verified for accuracy by a pharmacist.

Clinical Pharmacists' Contribution to Medication Reconciliation in Outpatient Specialty Clinics in Iran.

BACKGROUND: The majority of research in medication reconciliation has focused on the inpatient settings, and little is known about the outpatient settings, particularly in developing countries. As such, we conducted this study to evaluate direct clinical pharmacist involvement in medication reconciliation in outpatient specialty clinics in Iran. METHODS: This prospective interventional study was conducted from September 2019 to February 2020 in a University-affiliated clinic in Iran. For 196 patients over 18 years of age who were scheduled for an appointment with a physician, medication reconciliation intervention was carried out by a clinical pharmacist. The number and type of unintentional discrepancies, their potential harm to the patients, their correlation with the patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, and the number of accepted recommendations upon the unintentional discrepancies by the clinicians were assessed and recorded. Additionally, patients' understanding of any change made to their current medication regimen was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 57.14% of patients had at least one or more unintentional medication discrepancies, with an overall rate of 1.51 (±0.62) per patient. This is while the patient understanding of their medication changes was inadequate in a significant proportion of the study patients (62.2%). Patients with older ages, lower educational levels, and a higher number of medications and comorbidities were at a higher risk of having unintentional discrepancies. The most common type of unintentional discrepancy was the omission of a drug, and almost half of the reconciliation errors might have had the potential to cause moderate or severe harm to the patient. From 145 recommendations suggested by the clinical pharmacist upon unintentional discrepancies, 131 cases (90.34%) were accepted and implemented by the clinicians. CONCLUSION: These findings further support the need for conducting medication reconciliation in outpatient settings to identify discrepancies and enhance the safety of patient medication use.

Impact of Medication Reconciliation by a Dialysis Pharmacist.

Integrating a pharmacist into a hemodialysis unit significantly reduced medication discrepancies and medication-related problems over time.Medication reconciliation for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program can be optimally performed by a dialysis pharmacist.

Medication Discrepancy Risk Factors for Pediatric Patients With Epilepsy at Hospital Admission.

BACKGROUND: Children with epilepsy are at increased risk of medication errors due to disease complexity and administration of time-sensitive medication. Errors frequently occur during transitions of care between home and hospital, a time when accuracy of medication history lists is difficult to ascertain. Adverse events likely from medication discrepancies underscore the importance of improving medication reconciliation upon inpatient intake. This quality improvement project was designed to evaluate and optimize the current medication history process in epileptic patients upon hospital admission at a pediatric academic hospital. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 30 patients with epilepsy admitted in during April, July, and October 2018 to identify unintentional medication discrepancies among 6 sources: documented medication history, inpatient orders from the electronic medical record, outpatient clinic notes, inpatient history and admission document, phone message records, and external insurance claims. RESULTS: A total of 63% percent of patients had at least 1 unintentional medication discrepancy. Most discrepancies occurred with daily maintenance anticonvulsants (63%). The most common types were omission of medication history (31%) and inpatient order omissions (27%). The number of medication histories completed with at least 1 discrepancy varied across pharmacists, nurses, and physicians, yet differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a higher incidence of anticonvulsant discrepancies compared with previous studies. This quality improvement initiative identified the absence of a standardized process as the root cause for the high incidence of anticonvulsant discrepancies in pediatric patients with epilepsy at hospital admission.