A scoping review of non-professional medication practices and medication safety outcomes during public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES: Public health emergencies (PHE) can disrupt personal medication practices and increase the risk of medication-related harm and other negative medication-related outcomes. Our aim was to examine the extent and nature of published research on this topic to guide future research and practice. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Standard electronic databases were searched. PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. Extracted data were organised in response to review questions and narrative accounts developed. RESULTS: A total of 129 studies were included, conducted across 32 countries, mostly in the USA (n = 42). Sixty-eight (53%) reported on infectious events, 49 (39%) climatological or ecological events and the remainder a mixture of terrorism, war or other disasters. The studies described several medication safety outcomes (medication-related harm, adherence, supply) and adaptive medication practices (self-altering prescribed medications, sharing medications and changing healthcare providers). Challenges to maintaining routine medication practices during a PHE included transport, finance, quarantine and knowledge-related issues. Twenty-eight studies (22%) examined health inequalities pertaining to adverse medication-related outcomes, with findings suggesting that gender, age, ethnicity, educational and socio-economic status may be related to inequalities. Research gaps identified included carers', children's and minority communities' experiences and intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable evidence of disruptions to routine personal medication practices during PHEs and of medication-related harm and other negative outcomes. Maintaining medication supply for the management of chronic conditions is a universal problem across all emergency types. Research is needed to address these disruptions, particularly amongst people who experience health inequalities who may need additional support.

Personal Electronic Records of Medications (PERMs) for medication reconciliation at care transitions: a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec), a process to reduce medication error at care transitions, is labour- and resource-intensive and time-consuming. Use of Personal Electronic Records of Medications (PERMs) in health information systems to support MedRec have proven challenging. Relatively little is known about the design, use or implementation of PERMs at care transitions that impacts on MedRec in the 'real world'. To respond to this gap in knowledge we undertook a rapid realist review (RRR). The aim was to develop theories to explain how, why, when, where and for whom PERMs are designed, implemented or used in practice at care transitions that impacts on MedRec. METHODOLOGY: We used realist methodology and undertook the RRR between August 2020 and February 2021. We collaborated with experts in the field to identify key themes. Articles were sourced from four databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL Complete and OpenGrey) to contribute to the theory development. Quality assessment, screening and data extraction using NVivo was completed. Contexts, mechanisms and outcomes configurations were identified and synthesised. The experts considered these theories for relevance and practicality and suggested refinements. RESULTS: Ten provisional theories were identified from 19 articles. Some theories relate to the design (T2 Inclusive design, T3 PERMs complement existing good processes, T7 Interoperability), some relate to the implementation (T5 Tailored training, T9 Positive impact of legislation or governance), some relate to use (T6 Support and on-demand training) and others relate iteratively to all stages of the process (T1 Engage stakeholders, T4 Build trust, T8 Resource investment, T10 Patients as users of PERMs). CONCLUSIONS: This RRR has allowed additional valuable data to be extracted from existing primary research, with minimal resources, that may impact positively on future developments in this area. The theories are interdependent to a greater or lesser extent; several or all of the theories may need to be in play to collectively impact on the design, implementation or use of PERMs for MedRec at care transitions. These theories should now be incorporated into an intervention and evaluated to further test their validity.

Barriers and facilitators of medicines reconciliation at transitions of care in Ireland - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medication error at transitions of care is common. The implementation of medicines reconciliation processes to improve this issue has been recommended by many regulatory and safety organisations. The aim of this study was to gain insight from healthcare professionals on the barriers and facilitators to the medicines reconciliation implementation process. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Ireland with a wide range of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved with medicines reconciliation at transitions of care. Thematic analysis was undertaken using an adaptation of a combined theoretical framework of Grol, Cabana and Sluisveld to classify the barriers and facilitators to implementation of medicines reconciliation. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were interviewed, including eleven community pharmacists (CPs), eight hospital pharmacists (HPs), nine hospital consultants (HCs), five general practitioners (GPs), and two non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs). Themes were categorized into barriers and facilitators. Barriers included resistance from existing professional cultures, staff interest and training, poor communication and minimal information and communications technology (ICT) support. Solutions (facilitators) suggested included supporting effective multidisciplinary teams, greater involvement of pharmacists in medicines reconciliation, ICT solutions (linked prescribing databases, decision support systems) and increased funding to provide additional (e.g. admission and discharge reconciliation) and more advanced services (e.g. community pharmacist delivered medicines use review). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines reconciliation is advocated as a solution to the known problem of medication error at transitions of care. This study identifies the key challenges and potential solutions that policy makers, managers and HCPs should consider when reviewing the practices and processes of medicines reconciliation in their own organisations.

Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care.

BACKGROUND: Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.

GPs' and community pharmacists' opinions on medication management at transitions of care in Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to survey GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) in Ireland regarding current practices of medication management, specifically medication reconciliation, communication between health care providers and medication errors as patients transition in care. METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to 2364 GPs, 311 GP Registrars and 2382 CPs. Multivariable associations comparing GPs to CPs were generated and content analysis of free text responses was undertaken. RESULTS: There was an overall response rate of 17.7% (897 respondents-554 GPs/Registrars and 343 CPs). More than 90% of GPs and CPs were positive about the effects of medication reconciliation on medication safety and adherence. Sixty per cent of GPs reported having no formal system of medication reconciliation. Communication between GPs and CPs was identified as good/very good by >90% of GPs and CPs. The majority (>80%) of both groups could clearly recall prescribing errors, following a transition of care, they had witnessed in the previous 6 months. Free text content analysis corroborated the positive relationship between GPs and CPs, a frustration with secondary care communication, with many examples given of prescribing errors. CONCLUSIONS: While there is enthusiasm for the benefits of medication reconciliation there are limited formal structures in primary care to support it. Challenges in relation to systems that support inter-professional communication and reduce medication errors are features of the primary/secondary care transition. There is a need for an improved medication management system. Future research should focus on the identified barriers in implementing medication reconciliation and systems that can improve it.

Medication-Related Outcomes and Health Equity: Evidence for Pharmaceutical Care.

Marginalised people experience diminished access to pharmaceutical care and worse medication-related outcomes than the general population. Health equity is a global priority. This article explores the key evidence of health inequity and medication use, structures the causes and contributory factors and suggests opportunities that can be taken to advance the pharmaceutical care agenda so as to achieve health equity. The causes of, and contributors to, this inequity are multi-fold, with patient- and person-related factors being the most commonly reported. Limited evidence is available to identify risk factors related to other aspects of a personal medication use system, such as technology, tasks, tools and the internal and the external environments. Multiple opportunities exist to enhance equity in medication-related outcomes through pharmaceutical care research and practice. To optimise the effects and the sustainable implementation of these opportunities, it is important to (1) ensure the meaningful inclusion and engagement of members of marginalised groups, (2) use a person-centred approach and (3) apply a systems-based approach to address all of the necessary components of a system that interact and form a network as work processes that produce system outcomes.

Economic evaluation of a collaborative model of pharmaceutical care in an Irish hospital: cost-utility analysis.

Background: A complex, collaborative pharmaceutical care intervention including medication review and reconciliation demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the prevalence of discharge medication error and improved quality of prescribing for hospitalised adults.  This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using a decision-analytic framework. The evaluation was undertaken from the Health Service Executive's perspective, the payer for primary and secondary care settings. Direct costs associated with managing hypothetical harm consequent to intercepted discharge medication error and consequences in terms of quality-adjusted life years loss were key input parameters. Analysis was structured within a decision tree model in Microsoft Excel® populated with consequences as utilities, estimated costs using macro- and micro-costing approaches, and event probabilities generated from the original study. Incremental analysis, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The results of analysis for the base-care demonstrated that the intervention dominated standard care with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€36,537.24/quality-adjusted life year, indicating that the intervention is less costly and more effective. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses both demonstrated that the intervention dominated standard care. The model was relatively robust to variation in input parameters through one-way sensitivity analysis. The cost of discharge medication error and effect parameters relating to standard care were most sensitive to change. Discussion: The analysis demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of a complex pharmaceutical intervention which will support decision-making regarding implementation. This is the first cost-utility analysis of a complex, collaborative pharmaceutical care intervention, adding to the scant evidence-base in the field.

The medication self-management work system of patients and informal carers from a human factors & ergonomics perspective: A scoping review protocol.

Background: Healthcare is increasingly delivered closer to the patients' homes, which increases the level of responsibility that patients and informal carers take for managing their medication-taking, although this is associated with hazards. Medication self-management has been conceptualised as work taking place in non-formal settings ( e.g., households), which are complex systems. Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) models provide a framework for studying such systems. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) is one framework that considers work system elements and how they interact with each other to shape processes that lead to outcomes ( e.g., safety). Given the increasing amount of diverse research on patient and carer work and on system-shaping factors, the objectives of this review are to: (i) identify available evidence in a structured and systems-oriented way, (ii) explore approaches that have been applied and (iii) highlight research gaps. Methods: An evidence-informed patient, public and carer involvement (PPCI) approach will be implemented at all post-protocol stages to ensure the relevance, uptake and translation of the scoping review. The review will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify relevant qualitative studies. The methodological approach will be guided by Johanna Briggs Institute methodology and will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR standards. Data charting and qualitative content analysis directed by SEIPS will explore how the work system and its constituting elements have been described in the literature and identify specific gaps and opportunities for future research. Borrowing from realist approaches, included studies will be assessed in terms of richness and relevance to our review question. Discussion: Strengths of this scoping review include PPCI and a converging focus on medication safety, medication self-management and HFE. Ultimately, this approach will advance our understanding of this complex system and guide opportunities to broaden and strengthen the evidence base.

Potential costs and consequences associated with medication error at hospital discharge: an expert judgement study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the cost-effectiveness of complex pharmaceutical care interventions and medication error outcomes is hindered by lack of available data on actual outcomes consequent to errors that were intercepted for patient safety reasons. Expert judgement is an approach to acquire data regarding unknown parameters in an economic model which are otherwise insufficient or not possible to obtain. The aim of this paper is to describe a method to approach this problem using findings from a single intervention study and to calculate the potential costs and consequences associated with discharge medication error. METHODS: Using data from a previous intervention study, the hypothetical consequences of medication error(s) at hospital discharge, in terms of diagnosis, healthcare resource utilisation and impact on health-related quality of life, were identified by expert judgement of anonymised cases. Primary healthcare utilisation costs were derived from published tariffs, inpatient costs were derived by simulation in the hospital discharge activity database test environment and the difference between adjudicated baseline and posterror health state was expressed as quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrement. RESULTS: Four experts provided judgement on 81 cases. Of these, 75 were judged to have potential clinical consequences. Between 56 and 69 of the 81 cases were variably judged to require remedial healthcare utilisation. The mean calculated cost per case (representing an individual patient), based on all 81 cases, was €1009.58, 95% CI 726.64 to 1585.67. The mean QALY loss was 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05). CONCLUSION: An expert judgement process proved feasible and useful to estimate financial cost and QALY loss associated with hospital discharge medication error. These estimates will be employed in model-based economic evaluation. This method could be transferred to other prospective observational patient safety research which seeks to assess value for money of complex interventions.

Interprofessional Interventions Involving Pharmacists and Targeting the Medicines Management Process Provided to Older People Residing in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are often prescribed multiple medications, which increases their susceptibility to drug-related problems. The medicines management process involves multiple stages, for example, assessing, prescribing, dispensing, delivering and storing, administering, reviewing and monitoring. The medicine management process aims to optimise medicine use and associated patient outcomes. Interprofessional interventions of healthcare professionals from different disciplines in many clinical settings, including the nursing home setting, have shown success in improving patients' clinical outcomes. However, reporting of the pharmacist's role and the impact of these interventions has been unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically identify and describe interprofessional interventions involving pharmacists that target the medicine management process in nursing homes by (a) describing interprofessional interventions and the role of pharmacists within, (b) describing the impact of these interventions, (c) exploring which of the medicine management process stages were targeted and (d) identifying any reported theoretical underpinning. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycInfo, Cochrane library, Web of Science and clinical trial registers were searched from the inception date until August 2021. Randomised controlled trials reporting interprofessional interventions involving pharmacists, targeting at least one stage of the medicine management process and provided to nursing home residents with a mean age ≥ 65 years, were included. The search had no restriction on outcomes measured. Included randomised controlled trials were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the Jadad scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool, respectively. The overall certainty of outcomes was assessed using GRADEpro. If present, details about theoretical underpinning were extracted using the theory coding scheme. Fixed and random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled effect estimates to compare outcomes between intervention and control groups, where feasible, or a narrative description was reported. RESULTS: Eighteen manuscripts describing interprofessional interventions involving pharmacists were identified: medication review (n = 14), education (n = 3) and medication simplification (n = 1) based interventions. The pharmacists' most frequent role was the provision of medicine-related recommendations, and they worked mostly with general practitioners and nurses. Residents/family members contributed in 44% of included interventions. A meta-analysis identified that interventions were significantly associated with significant improvements in prescribing appropriateness (standard mean difference - 0.20; 95% confidence interval - 0.33 to - 0.77; I2 = 27%) but not with hospitalisation and mortality. None of the included studies reported a theoretical underpinning to intervention development. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a detailed description of the impact of interprofessional practice, involving pharmacists, which targets at least one stage of the medicine management process in the nursing home setting. The findings suggest that future research should prioritise improving prescribing inappropriateness rather than the number of long-term medications prescribed. It remains unknown if interventions are designed using theory and, therefore, it is not clear whether theory-derived interventions are more effective than those without a theoretical element. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [Ref: CRD42020181744].

Medication details documented on hospital discharge: cross-sectional observational study of factors associated with medication non-reconciliation.

AIMS: Movement into or out of hospital is a vulnerable period for medication safety. Reconciling the medication a patient is using before admission with the medication prescribed on discharge, and documenting any changes (medication reconciliation) is recommended to improve safety. The aims of the study were to investigate the factors contributing to medication reconciliation on discharge, and identify the prevalence of non-reconciliation. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional, observational survey using consecutive discharges from purposively selected services in two acute public hospitals in Ireland. Medication reconciliation, potential for harm and unplanned re-admission were investigated. RESULTS: Medication non-reconciliation was identified in 50% of 1245 inpatient episodes, involving 16% of 9569 medications. The majority of non-reconciled episodes had potential to result in moderate (63%) or severe (2%) harm. Handwritten rather than computerized discharges (adjusted odds ratio (adjusted OR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.11, 2.99), increasing number of medications (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21, 1.31) or chronic illness (adjusted OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.33, 3.24) were associated with non-reconciliation. Omission of endocrine, central nervous system and nutrition and blood drugs was more likely on discharge, whilst omission on admission and throughout inpatient care, without documentation, was more likely for obstetric, gynaecology and urinary tract (OGU) or respiratory drugs. Documentation in the discharge communication that medication was intentionally stopped during inpatient care was less likely for cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and OGU drugs. Errors involving the dose were most likely for respiratory drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings inform strategies to facilitate medication reconciliation on discharge from acute hospital care.

Medicines management at home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the UK patient/carer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore home medicine practices and safety for people shielding and/or over the age of 70 during the COVID-19 pandemic and to create guidance, from the patient/carer perspective, for enabling safe medicine practices for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 50 UK participants who were shielding and/or over the age of 70 and who used medicines for a long-term condition, using telephone or video conferencing. Participants were recruited through personal/professional networks and through patient/carer organisations. Participants were asked about their experiences of managing medicines during the pandemic and how this differed from previous practices. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Patients' and their families' experiences of managing medicines safely during the pandemic varied greatly. Analysis suggests that this was based on the patient's own agency, the functioning of their medicines system pre-pandemic and their relationships with family, friends, community networks and pharmacy staff. Medicine safety issues reported included omitted doses and less-effective formulations being used. Participants also described experiencing high levels of anxiety related to obtaining medicines, monitoring medicines and feeling at risk of contracting COVID-19 while accessing healthcare services for medicine-related issues. Effects of the pandemic on medicines adherence were reported to be positive by some and negative by others. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy staff have a key role to play by establishing good relationships with patients and their families, working with prescribers to ensure medicines systems are as joined up as possible, and signposting to community networks that can help with medicines collection.

Pharmacy services at admission and discharge in adult, acute, public hospitals in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: to describe hospital pharmacy involvement in medication management in Ireland, both generally and at points of transfer of care, and to gain a broad perspective of the hospital pharmacy workforce. METHODS: a survey of all adult, acute, public hospitals with an accident and emergency (A&E) department (n = 36), using a semi-structured telephone interview. KEY FINDINGS: there was a 97% (n = 35) response rate. The majority (n = 25, 71.4%) of hospitals reported delivery of a clinical pharmacy service. On admission, pharmacists were involved in taking or verifying medication histories in a minority (n = 15, 42.9%) of hospitals, while few (n = 6,17.1%) deployed staff to the A&E/acute medical admissions unit. On discharge, the majority (n = 30,85.7%) did not supply any take-out medication, a minority (n =5,14.3%) checked the discharge prescription, 51.4% (n = 18) counselled patients, 42.9% (n = 15) provided medication compliance charts and one hospital (2.9%) communicated with the patient's community pharmacy. The number of staff employed in the pharmacy department in each hospital was not proportionate to the number of inpatient beds, nor the volume of admissions from A&E. There were differences identified in service delivery between hospitals of different type: urban hospitals with a high volume of admissions from A&E were more likely to deliver clinical pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: the frequency and consistency of delivering pharmacy services to facilitate medication reconciliation at admission and discharge could be improved. Workforce constraints may inhibit service expansion. Development of national standards of practice may help to eliminate variation between hospitals and support service development.

Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to 'cocoon'/'shield' and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient's/carer's perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.

Care of the stroke patient-communication between the community pharmacist and prescribers in the Republic of Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the perceptions that community pharmacists have of communication with prescribers in both primary and secondary care in Ireland, with respect to care of stroke patients. SETTING: Community pharmacies across Ireland, stratified into the four representative administrative regions. METHOD: Survey using a structured postal questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Perceptions of communication with prescribers based in primary and secondary care; pharmacy and pharmacy premises demographics. RESULTS: A response rate of 52% (n = 314) was achieved. Community pharmacists' perceptions of information provision from secondary care were low, the majority (83%) never received any information from the hospital, although they would welcome it. Communication with hospital based prescribers was considered by most (93%) to be poor. The majority (greater than 75%) of respondents expressed a desire for greater information provision concerning a stroke patient's medication and diagnostic information. Pharmacists' perceptions of interaction with general practitioners were generally regarded as good (63%) although information provision in both directions between pharmacist and general practitioner could be improved. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicated that community pharmacists perceive that there is room for improvement in the communication between themselves and prescribers in the primary and secondary care settings, concerning the care of the stroke patient. This highlights the need for the development of formal communication channels between community pharmacists and other members of the healthcare team involved in the care of the stroke patient. However, the challenges of communicating patient information across healthcare sectors are recognized.

Unintended discontinuation of medication following hospitalisation: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Whether unintended discontinuation of common, evidence-based, long-term medication occurs after hospitalisation; what factors are associated with unintended discontinuation; and whether the presence of documentation of medication at hospital discharge is associated with continuity of medication in general practice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study between 2012 and 2015. SETTING: Electronic records and hospital supplied discharge notifications in 44 Irish general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 20 488 patients aged 65 years or more prescribed long-term medication for chronic conditions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Discontinuity of four evidence-based medication drug classes: antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, thyroid replacement drugs and respiratory inhalers in hospitalised versus non-hospitalised patients; patient and health system factors associated with discontinuity; impact of the presence of medication in the hospital discharge summary on continuity of medication in a patient's general practitioner (GP) prescribing record at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: In patients admitted to hospital, medication discontinuity ranged from 6%-11% in the 6 months posthospitalisation. Discontinuity of medication is significantly lower for hospitalised patients taking respiratory inhalers (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.63, 95% CI (0.49 to 0.80), p<0.001) and thyroid medications (AOR 0.62, 95% CI (0.40 to 0.96), p=0.03). There is no association between discontinuity of medication and hospitalisation for antithrombotics (AOR 0.95, 95% CI (0.81 to 1.11), p=0.49) or lipid lowering medications (AOR 0.92, 95% CI (0.78 to 1.08), p=0.29). Older patients and those who paid to see their GP were more likely to experience increased odds of discontinuity in all four medicine groups. Less than half (39% to 47.4%) of patients had medication listed on their hospital discharge summary. Presence of medication on hospital discharge summary is significantly associated with continuity of medication in the GP prescribing record for lipid lowering medications (AOR 1.64, 95% CI (1.15 to 2.36), p=0.01) and respiratory inhalers (AOR 2.97, 95% CI (1.68 to 5.25), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Discontinuity of evidence-based long-term medication is common. Increasing age and private medical care are independently associated with a higher risk of medication discontinuity. Hospitalisation is not associated with discontinuity but less than half of hospitalised patients have medication recorded on their hospital discharge summary.

Design and Implementation of an Integrated Competency-Focused Pharmacy Programme: A Case Report.

This paper describes the design and implementation of elements of an integrated competency-focused pharmacy programme in the School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SoPPS), Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland. Following a national review of pharmacy education and training in Ireland in 2010, and subsequent publication of legislation in 2014, the School has implemented a five-year integrated programme of pharmacy education and training, leading to the award of a Master's degree in Pharmacy (M. Pharm.). Curricular integration has been achieved by underpinning the new programme with a national competency framework for pharmacists and through the utilisation of curricular integration themes. Programme integration also encompasses embedded experiential learning placements in Years 2, 4 and 5 of the five-year programme. The new five-year integrated pharmacy programme, which commenced in 2015, replaced the 4 + 1 model of education and training where a four-year Bachelor's degree was followed by a one-year internship, which was a distinct and separate element of the students' training.