Using Kane's Validity Framework to Compare an Integrated and Single-Skill Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the validity of an integrated objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) station assessing both oral and written components with that of an OSCE station assessing 1 single skill (oral only), both targeted at assessing taking a best possible medication history. METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods design that used the 4 inferences of Kane's validity framework (scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications) as a scaffold to integrate qualitative data (post-OSCE reflections) and quantitative data (assessment grades and categories of medication errors) was applied. RESULTS: In 2022, 216 students completed the OSCE station with the oral component alone, while in 2023, 254 students completed the integrated (oral and written) OSCE station. Students in 2023 performed significantly better, with a median score of 88% vs 80% in 2022. There was a greater proportion of commission errors in the integrated assessment (20.4% vs 15.3%), but fewer omission errors (29.9% vs 31.8%) and patient profile errors (5.1% vs 69.4%). Student reflections revealed that conversations were rushed in the integrated assessment, with a greater focus on written formatting, but an appreciation for the authenticity and structured format of the integrated OSCE compared with the single-skill OSCE alone. CONCLUSION: Students completing the integrated OSCE (with oral and written components) had fewer patient profile and medication omission errors than students who completed the oral-only OSCE. Considering Kane's validity framework, there was a stronger argument for the more authentic integrated OSCE in terms of the inferences of extrapolation and implications.

Introduction of a Pre-admission Pharmacist Service Utilising the Surgical Ward Pharmacist.

Background: The challenge with obtaining a best possible medication history (BPMH) post-surgery is the delay in clarifying medications due to decreased post-operative cognitive status and pain, which can lead to missed or late administration of medications. Studies have suggested that unintentional medication discrepancies at the time of admission are common in general medical patients. Objectives: To investigate if a pre-admission pharmacist completing BPMHs for adult elective surgery patients with planned overnight admission increases the proportion of patients with (i) a BPMH completed, (ii) medication reconciliation completed and (iii) all home medications charted correctly within 24 hours of admission. Methods: Patients in the pre-intervention group had a BPMH completed on admission as standard of care. Patients in the post-intervention group were contacted by the pre-admission pharmacist 1 to 3 business days prior to admission to complete a BPMH. The pre-admission pharmacist role was performed by a surgical ward pharmacist in addition to their daily workload. Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyse the data. Results: The post-intervention group had more patients with a completed BPMH (47.2% vs 25.3%, P = .005), medication reconciliation (43.8% vs 15.5%, P = .0001) and all home medications charted correctly (36% vs 16.9%, P = .007) within 24 hours of admission compared with the pre-intervention group. Conclusion: The introduction of a pre-admission service utilising the surgical ward pharmacist increased the proportion of patients with a completed BPMH, medication reconciliation and home medications charted correctly within 24 hours of admission.

The effect of an extended-hours ED clinical pharmacy service on admission medication prescribing errors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a 7-day extended-hours clinical pharmacy service in the ED on medication prescribing errors upon hospital admission and time to medication reconciliation. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, high-needs patients reviewed by ED pharmacists were compared against those not reviewed, to determine if the service was associated with reduction in admission medication errors. The primary outcome was the rate of medication errors. Errors were independently rated by two senior clinicians using a risk-probability matrix. Secondary outcomes included service's impact on time to best possible medication history (BPMH) and medication reconciliation. RESULTS: There were 242 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 105 intervention vs 137 control. In the intervention arm, 74 patients had at least 1 medication error compared with 113 in the control arm (total errors 206 vs 407). The error rate per 10 medications (interquartile range) was 1.4 (0, 2.9) in the intervention arm compared with 2.7 (1.2, 4.3) in the control arm (risk ratio 0.66 [95% confidence interval: 0.56-0.78]; P < 0.001). There were 33 moderate-risk and no high-risk errors (intervention), compared with 84 moderate-risk and 3 high-risk errors (control). Percent agreement was 98.98% (weighted kappa: 0.62). Time to BPMH and medication reconciliation were reduced from 40.5 and 45.0 h to 7.8 and 40.0 h, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-day extended-hours ED clinical pharmacy service was associated with a reduction in medication prescribing errors in high-needs patients and improved time to BPMH and medication reconciliation.

Clinical Pharmacy Services in Canadian Emergency Departments: A 2022 National Survey.

Background: Support for the role of an emergency department (ED) clinical pharmacy team is evidence-based and recognized in numerous professional guidelines, yet previous literature suggests a low prevalence of ED clinical pharmacy services in Canadian hospitals. Objectives: To update (from a survey conducted in 2013) the description and quantification of clinical pharmacy services in Canadian EDs. Methods: All Canadian hospitals with an ED and at least 50 acute care beds were contacted to identify the presence of dedicated ED pharmacy services (defined as at least 0.5 full-time equivalent [FTE] position). Three separate electronic surveys were distributed by email to ED pharmacy team members (if available), pharmacy managers (at hospitals without an ED pharmacy team), and ED managers (all hospitals). The surveys were completed between November 2021 and January 2022. Results: Of the 254 hospitals identified, 117 (46%) had at least 0.5 FTE clinical pharmacy services in the ED (based on initial telephone screening). Of the 51 (44%) of 115 ED pharmacy team survey responses included in the analysis, 94% (48/51) had pharmacists and 55% (28/51) had pharmacy technicians. The majority of pharmacy managers and ED managers identified the need for ED pharmacy services where such services did not exist. Inadequate funding, competing priorities, and lack of training remain the most commonly reported barriers to providing this service. Personal safety concerns were reported by 20% (10/51) of respondents. Conclusions: Although the establishment of clinical pharmacy services in Canadian EDs has grown over the past 8 years, lack of funding and ED-specific training continue to limit this evidence-supported role in Canadian hospitals.

Contexte: La pratique de pharmacie clinique au service des urgences (SU) est fondée sur les données probantes et reconnue dans de nombreuses lignes directrices professionnelles. Cependant, des données portent à croire à une faible prévalence de ces services dans les SU des hôpitaux canadiens. Objectif: Mettre à jour la description et la quantification des services de pharmacie clinique dans les SU canadiens (à partir d'une enquête menée en 2013). Méthodes: Tous les hôpitaux canadiens dotés d'un SU et d'au moins 50 lits de soins de courte durée ont été contactés pour recenser la présence de services de pharmacie dédiés au SU (définis comme au moins 0,5 poste équivalent temps complet [ETC]). Trois sondages électroniques différents ont été distribués par courriel aux membres de l'équipe de la pharmacie du SU (le cas échéant), aux gestionnaires de pharmacie (dans les hôpitaux sans équipe de pharmacie au SU) et aux gestionnaires du SU (tous les hôpitaux). Les enquêtes ont été réalisées entre novembre 2021 et janvier 2022. Résultats: Sur les 254 hôpitaux recensés, 117 (46 %) disposaient d'au moins 0,5 ETC de services de pharmacie clinique au SU (d'après la sélection téléphonique initiale). Des 51 (44 %) sur 115 équipes de pharmacie du SU qui ont été inclus dans l'analyse, 94 % (48/51) avaient des pharmaciens et 55 % (28/51) avaient également du personnel technique en pharmacie. La majorité des directeurs de pharmacie et des directeurs des SU ont identifié le besoin de services de pharmacie au SU là où de tels services n'existent pas. Un financement inadéquat, des priorités concurrentes et le manque de formation demeurent les obstacles les plus souvent signalés à la prestation de ce service. Des problèmes de sécurité personnelle ont été mentionnés par 20 % (10/51) des répondants. Conclusion: Bien que l'établissement de services de pharmacie clinique dans les SU canadiens ait augmenté au cours des 8 dernières années, le manque de financement et de formation spécifique en pharmacie de médecine d'urgence continue de limiter ce rôle fondé sur des données probantes dans les hôpitaux canadiens.

Best Possible Medication History Collection by Clinical Pharmacist in a Preoperative Setting: An Observational Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) collected by clinical pharmacists is crucial for effective medication review, but, in Italy, it is often left to the nursing staff. This study aims to compare the quality and accuracy of a clinical pharmacist-documented BPMH with the current standard practice of ward staff-collected BPMH in an Italian preoperative surgical setting. METHODS: A 20-week prospective observational non-profit study was conducted in a major university hospital. The study comprised three phases: a feasibility, an observational, and an interventional phase. During the feasibility phase, 10 items for obtaining a correct BPMH were identified. The control group consisted of retrospectively analyzed BPMHs collected by the ward staff during the observational phase, while interventions included BPMHs collected by the clinical pharmacist during the third phase. Omissions between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: 14 (2.0%) omissions were found in the intervention group, compared with 400 (57.4%) found in the controls (p < 0.05); data collection was more complete when collected by pharmacists compared to the current modality (98.0% of completed information for the intervention versus 42.6%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of a pharmacist significantly reduced the number of omissions in preoperative surgical-collected BPMHs. This intervention holds the potential to decrease the risk of medication errors associated with inaccurate or incomplete BPMHs prior to surgical hospitalization.

Study Protocol for the Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Medication Reconciliation Service in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (The MERITS Study): A Single-Center Controlled before-and-after Study.

Medication reconciliation (MR), which is widely implemented worldwide, aims to improve patient safety to reduce the medication errors during care transition. Despite its widespread use, MR has not yet been implemented in the Republic of Korea, and its effectiveness has not been studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary MR service in older patients undergoing thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. This is a single-center, prospective, controlled, before-and-after study of adult patients taking at least one chronic oral medication. Depending on the period of each patient's participation, they will be allocated to an intervention group or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive multidisciplinary MR, and those in the control group will receive usual care. The primary outcome is to assess the impact of the MR service on medication discrepancies between the best possible medication history and medication orders at care transition. Secondary outcomes include the incidence rate of medication discrepancies at each transition, the discrepancy rate between the sources of information, the impact of MR on medication appropriateness index score, drug-related problems, 30-day mortality, the emergency department visit rate, readmission rate after discharge, the rate and acceptability of pharmacists' intervention during hospitalization, and patients' satisfaction.

Obtaining medication histories via telepharmacy: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is an effective strategy to reduce medication errors upon hospital admission. The process involves obtaining a best possible medication history (BPMH), which can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepharmacy was used to reduce the risk of viral transmission. Telepharmacy is the remote provision of pharmacy-led clinical services, such as obtaining BPMHs, using telecommunications. However, the accuracy of telephone-obtained BPMHs has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of patients who have an accurate BPMH from the telephone-obtained BPMH compared to an in-person obtained BPMH. METHODS: This prospective, observational study took place in a large tertiary hospital. Recruited patients or carers had their BPMH obtained by a pharmacist over the telephone. The same patients or carers then had their BPMH conducted in-person to identify any deviations between the telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. All telephone-obtained BPMHs were timed with a stopwatch. Any deviations were categorised according to their potential consequence. An accurate BPMH was defined as having no deviations. Descriptive statistics were used to report all quantitative variables. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for patients and medications for having medication deviations. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients were recruited to receive both a telephone-obtained and in-person obtained BPMH. Of these, 91 patients (78%) had an accurate BPMH with no deviations. Of the 1104 medications documented across all the BPMHs, 1064 (96%) had no deviation. Of the 40 (4%) medication deviations, 38 were deemed low-risk (3%) and 2 high-risk (1%). A patient was more likely to have a deviation if they are taking more medications (aOR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22; p < 0.05). A medication was more likely to have a deviation if it was regular non-prescription medication (aOR: 4.82; 95% CI: 2.14-10.82; p < 0.001) or 'when required' non-prescription medication (aOR: 3.12; 95% CI: 1.20-8.11; p = 0.02) or a topical medication (aOR: 12.53; 95% CI: 4.34-42.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telepharmacy represents a reliable and time-efficient alternative to in-person BPMHs.

[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.

Improving the Efficiency of Medication Reconciliation in Two Taiwanese Hospitals by Using the Taiwan National Health Insurance PharmaCloud Medication System.

Purpose: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process to ensure complete and accurate communication of patient medication information throughout care transitions to prevent medication errors. Hospitals in Taiwan have stride to implement a universal protocol for MedRec. To establish a feasible protocol indigenously, the World Health Organization (WHO) protocol was incorporated with the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) PharmaCloud patient medication profile. The efficiency and error detection capability of this modified protocol was evaluated in two hospitals. Methods: A prospective, non-randomized, unblinded, multicenter cohort study was conducted. Subjects were recruited among patients admitted for colorectal or orthopedic surgery with at least 4 or more chronic drugs. To obtain the best possible medication history (BPMH), the control group was conducted according to the WHO protocol, and the experimental group used the modified WHO protocol with the medication data from the PharmaCloud system. The time spent on the two protocols was recorded. Admission and discharge orders were reconciled against the BPMH to identify any discrepancies. Discrepancies were evaluated by appropriateness, prescribing intentions, and types of inappropriateness. The levels of potential harm were classified for inappropriate discrepancies. Results: The mean time to obtain BPMH in the control group was 34.3±10.8 minutes and in the experimental group 27.5±11.5 minutes (P = 0.01). The experimental group had more subjects with discrepancies (87.9%) than the control (58.3%) (p < 0.001). The discrepancies in both admission and discharge orders for the experimental group (84.5 and 67.2%) were higher than those of the control (47.9 and 37.5%). Many inappropriate discrepancies were classified as the potential harm of level 2 (77.8%). Conclusion: Through the establishment of BPMH with the medication data from the Taiwan NHI PharmaCloud, MedRec could be achieved with greater efficiency and error detection capability in both the admission and discharge order validation processes.

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.

The WHO High 5s project: medication reconciliation in a German university hospital. A prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring medication accuracy during transitions in care is one of the five highly prevalent patient safety problems focused on within the World Health Organization High 5s Project. Medication reconciliation is a standardized patient care process that can be used to address this problem. The aim of the current study is to implement medication reconciliation in a German university hospital. METHODS: The study was conducted at the Emergency Department of the University Hospital Aachen, Germany. All discrepancies between the Best Possible Medication History and the Admission Medication Order were documented and classified as documentation errors or medication errors. The type of error was also recorded. A negative binomial regression model was used to test several factors influencing the number of discrepancies. RESULTS: The medications of 105 patients were reconciled. The mean number of discrepancies per patient was 4.6± 3.6, with a total of 298 medication errors and 189 documentation errors. The most common type of medication error was the omission of a drug (n=208; 69.8 %). In the negative binomial regression analysis, the care status (p=0.0015) as well as the number of preadmission drugs (p=0.0007) were significantly associated with medication errors. DISCUSSION: A high number of discrepancies was detected and analysed. Patients admitted from nursing homes were less likely to have discrepancies in their medication reconciliation, perhaps because a structured documentation system for medications is already in place at nursing homes including error prone products (special dosage forms or food supplements). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, medication reconciliation was implemented at a German full-care university hospital. The actual number of discrepancies observed strongly indicates the need for medication reconciliation at hospital admission.

Sources of medication omissions among hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized older adults have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and medication inaccuracies. Gathering the best possible medication history (BPMH) is necessary to accurately identify each medication for multimorbid older adults. The objective was to describe a multipronged approach to obtaining the BPMH for hospitalized older adults, quantify the medication discrepancies identified through these sources, and explore factors associated with these discrepancies. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 372 hospitalized older adults (age ≥ 50) transitioning to post-acute care as part of a randomized controlled trial to reduce medication burden. We used four information sources to yield a BPMH. Medication discrepancies at hospital admission were categorized as omissions, additions, and dose discrepancies after comparing alternate sources with the electronic medical record (EMR). Multivariate regression analysis, including patient factors (e.g., age, prehospital medication count, number of pharmacies), was performed to identify factors associated with the total count of medication discrepancies. RESULTS: Ninety percent of participants had at least one medication discrepancy and 46% used more than one pharmacy. The majority of discrepancies were omissions. Among the entire cohort, there was a median of two omitted medications per patient across two alternate sources-pharmacy refill history and bedside interview. Lower age, greater total number of prehospital medications, and admission from assisted living or skilled nursing facility were significantly associated with greater medication discrepancies. CONCLUSION: A multipronged and consistent approach to obtain a BPMH during hospitalization for multimorbid older adults revealed medication discrepancies that should be addressed prior to hospital discharge to support safe prescribing practices.

Assessment of a pharmacy technician medication history program.

PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of unintentional prior-to-admission (PTA) medication list discrepancies captured by second-source verification. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled intervention was conducted on all patients admitted to a large academic medical center with a PTA medication list completed by a pharmacy technician from December 2018 through January 2019. Excluded patients included those admitted as observation status or discharged prior to the time of second-source verification. The following data was collected: patient's medical record number, age, admission date and time, service admitted to, date and time of completed PTA medication list, date and time of second-source verification, type of second-source verification, medication name, dose, route, frequency, formulation, and confidence level of pharmacy technician completing the initial PTA medication list. Second-source verification was conducted on all medications from a patient's PTA medication list after completion by a pharmacy technician. RESULTS: There were a total of 992 medications from the 200 randomly assigned patients with a completed PTA medication list by a pharmacy technician during the study time frame. Of these medications, 116 (11.7%) contained a discrepancy identified by second-source verification. The most common type of discrepancy was omission (67%) followed by dosing, frequency, and formulation. The median time to complete second-source verification was 9 minutes (interquartile range, 5-17 minutes). CONCLUSION: Second-source verification at the time of hospital admission helps identify medication discrepancies and may improve medication use safety and prescribing pattern and, accordingly, may contribute to reducing medication errors.

Correlation between Medication Administration-Related Errors in Patients with Parkinson Disease and Timing of Pharmacy-Led Best Possible Medication Histories.

BACKGROUND: Poor prescribing and incomplete medication administration have been linked to increased lengths of hospitalization for patients with Parkinson disease. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has recommended that patients with Parkinson disease receive a pharmacy consultation within 2 h of admission to hospital. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the time for a pharmacy team member to obtain a best possible medication history (BPMH) was associated with administration-related medication errors. The primary outcome was the proportion of doses with a medication error during a patient's admission in relation to the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a registered pharmacist (RPh) or registered pharmacy technician (RPhT). The secondary objective was to compare the proportion of doses with a medication error in relation to whether the BPMH was completed by an RPh or an RPhT. METHODS: This retrospective chart review involved patients with Parkinson disease who were admitted to the medicine services at London Health Sciences Centre from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2018. Patients were included if they had Parkinson disease and a medication regimen that included levodopa-carbidopa. For all patients, an RPhT or RPh conducted the initial BPMH or updated the BPMH. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether a correlation existed between administration-related errors and completion of the BPMH by a pharmacy staff member. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients with 104 admissions were included. There was no significant correlation between the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a pharmacy team member and the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.32). Although RPhTs completed the BPMHs more quickly than RPhs (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference between pharmacy team members in terms of the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Completing a BPMH within 2 h of a patient's admission, as per the ISMP recommendation, is unlikely to affect administration-related medication errors, given that no correlation was identified. Expediting BPMH without addressing other factors is insufficient, and initiatives are required to improve the medication administration process.

CONTEXTE: La mauvaise prescription et l'administration incomplète de médicaments ont été liées à une augmentation de la durée du séjour à l'hôpital des patients atteints de la maladie de Parkinson. L'Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) a recommandé que les patients atteints de la maladie de Parkinson obtiennent une consultation en pharmacie dans les 2 heures après leur admission à l'hôpital. OBJECTIFS: Vérifier si le temps d'attente pour l'obtention, par un membre de l'équipe de la pharmacie, du meilleur schéma thérapeutique possible (MSTP) était associé ou non à des erreurs de médication liées à l'administration. Le résultat principal portait sur la proportion des doses comportant une erreur de médication lors de l'admission d'un patient par rapport au temps nécessaire à un pharmacien ou à un technicien en pharmacie autorisés pour réaliser le MSTP initial. L'objectif secondaire visait à comparer la proportion des doses comportant une erreur de médication entre un MSTP réalisé par un pharmacien autorisé et un MSTP réalisé par un technicien en pharmacie autorisé. MÉTHODES: Cet examen rétrospectif des dossiers impliquait des patients atteints de la maladie de Parkinson ayant été admis aux services de médecine au London Health Sciences Centre entre le 30 septembre 2014 et le 30 septembre 2018. Les patients pouvaient participer à l'étude s'ils avaient la maladie de Parkinson et qu'ils suivaient un traitement médicamenteux comprenant du lévodopa-carbidopa. Un pharmacien autorisé ou un technicien en pharmacie autorisé réalisait ou actualisait le MSTP initial de tous les patients. La corrélation de Pearson a servi à déterminer s'il existait une corrélation entre les erreurs liées à l'administration et la réalisation du MSTP par un membre du personnel de la pharmacie. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 84 patients correspondant à 104 admissions ont été inclus dans l'étude. Il n'y avait aucune corrélation importante entre le moment de la réalisation du MSTP initial par un membre du personnel de la pharmacie et la proportion des doses comportant des erreurs de médication (p = 0,32). Bien que les techniciens en pharmacie autorisés aient terminé plus rapidement leur MSTP que les pharmaciens autorisés (p < 0,001), aucune différence importante n'a été notée entre les membres du personnel de la pharmacie en termes de proportion des doses et d'erreur de médication (p = 0,86). CONCLUSIONS: Il est peu probable que la réalisation d'un MSTP dans les 2 heures après l'admission d'un patient, conformément à la recommandation de l'ISMP, ait une influence sur les erreurs de médication liées à l'administration, vu qu'aucune corrélation n'a été décelée. Précipiter la réalisation du MSTP sans aborder les autres facteurs ne suffit pas et des actions sont nécessaires pour améliorer le processus d'administration des médicaments.

Learning from Practice: How East Lancashire Hospitals' Pharmacy Service Has Embraced Information Technology.

The ethos of the pharmacy service at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (ELHT) could be described as 'let's make things better'. We have a history of innovation involving technology and people; one without the other does not work but together they are synergistic. The Trust currently does not have an electronic patient record (ePR) or electronic prescribing and medicines administration (ePMA), although we do have electronic prescribing for chemotherapy. However, like all Trusts, we have many electronic systems which offer interoperability, or can support making it easier for the pharmacy team to do a good job. This article describes the many fronts we have worked on over the last ten plus years. Taken individually, the elements cannot be considered as revolutionary; together, they have helped us develop and deliver the safe, personal and effective pharmacy service that we call dedicated ward pharmacy.

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.

Quality of Best Possible Medication History upon Admission to Hospital: Comparison of Nurses and Pharmacy Students and Consideration of National Quality Indicators.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation at transitions of care increases patient safety. Collection of an accurate best possible medication history (BPMH) on admission is a key step. National quality indicators are used as surrogate markers for BPMH quality, but no literature on their accuracy exists. Obtaining a high-quality BPMH is often labour- and resource-intensive. Pharmacy students are now being assigned to obtain BPMHs, as a cost-effective means to increase BPMH completion, despite limited information to support the quality of BPMHs obtained by students relative to other health care professionals. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the national quality indicator of using more than one source to complete a BPMH is a true marker of quality and to assess whether BPMHs obtained by pharmacy students were of quality equal to those obtained by nurses. METHODS: This prospective trial compared BPMHs for the same group of patients collected by nurses and by trained pharmacy students in the emergency departments of 2 sites within a large health network over a 2-month period (July and August 2016). Discrepancies between the 2 versions were identified by a pharmacist, who determined which party (nurse, pharmacy student, or both) had made an error. A panel of experts reviewed the errors and ranked their severity. RESULTS: BPMHs were prepared for a total of 40 patients. Those prepared by nurses were more likely to contain an error than those prepared by pharmacy students (171 versus 43 errors, p = 0.006). There was a nonsignificant trend toward less severe errors in BPMHs completed by pharmacy students. There was no significant difference in the mean number of errors in relation to the specified quality indicator (mean of 2.7 errors for BPMHs prepared from 1 source versus 4.8 errors for BPMHs prepared from ≥ 2 sources, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The surrogate marker (number of BPMH sources) may not reflect BPMH quality. However, it appears that BPMHs prepared by pharmacy students had fewer errors and were of similar quality (in terms of clinically significant errors) relative to those prepared by nurses.

CONTEXTE: L'établissement du bilan comparatif des médicaments au moment du transfert des soins accroît la sécurité des patients. L'obtention d'un meilleur schéma thérapeutique possible (MSTP) exact à l'admission en est une étape clé. Des indicateurs nationaux de la qualité sont utilisés comme critères de substitution pour évaluer la qualité des MSTP, mais il n'y a pas de documentation se penchant sur leur exactitude. Obtenir un MSTP de grande qualité est souvent exigeant sur le plan du personnel et des ressources. Des étudiants en pharmacie se voient maintenant confier l'élaboration de MSTP, une façon peu coûteuse d'accroître les taux de réalisation de MSTP; or, il n'y a que peu d'information pour valider le degré de qualité des MSTP obtenus par des étudiants en comparaison avec ceux produits par d'autres professionnels de la santé. OBJECTIFS: Déterminer si l'indicateur national de qualité basé sur le recours à plus d'une source de renseignements pour réaliser un MSTP est un vrai marqueur de qualité et évaluer la qualité relative des MSTP de la part des étudiants en pharmacie et du personnel infirmier. MÉTHODES: Dans la présente étude prospective réalisée sur une période de deux mois (en juillet et en août 2016), les chercheurs ont comparé les MSTP recueillis auprès du même groupe de patients par du personnel infirmier et par des étudiants en pharmacie qualifiés dans les services des urgences de deux établissements faisant partie d'un important réseau de santé. Un pharmacien relevait les divergences entre les deux versions du MSTP et imputait l'erreur soit au personnel infirmier, soit à l'étudiant en pharmacie ou soit aux deux parties. Un groupe d'experts a étudié les erreurs et leur a accordé une cote selon leur degré de gravité. RÉSULTATS: Des MSTP ont été réalisés auprès de 40 patients. Ceux préparés par le personnel infirmier étaient plus susceptibles de contenir une erreur que ceux établis par les étudiants en pharmacie (171 contre 43 erreurs, p = 0,006). On a noté une tendance non significative selon laquelle les erreurs commises par les étudiants en pharmacie étaient moins graves. Aucune différence significative n'a été relevée quant au nombre moyen d'erreurs par rapport à l'indicateur de qualité (2,7 pour les MSTP provenant d'une source contre 4,8 pour les MSTP provenant de deux sources ou plus, p = 0,08). CONCLUSIONS: Le critère de substitution (nombre de sources pour le MSTP) pourrait ne pas être représentatif de la qualité du MSTP. Cependant, il semble que les MSTP préparés par les étudiants en pharmacie comportaient moins d'erreurs et étaient de qualité comparable (quant aux erreurs cliniquement significatives) à ceux établis par le personnel infirmier.

Accuracy of best possible medication history documentation by pharmacists at an Australian tertiary referral metropolitan hospital.

AIM: To determine the quality of best possible medication history (BPMH) taking activities undertaken by pharmacists. To identify factors which impact upon erroneous documentation. To assess risks associated with erroneous documentation of BPMH by pharmacists. METHOD: A clinical pharmacist randomly selected patients across a tertiary referral, metropolitan hospital over an 9-day period and documented comparator medication histories (CMHs) using a structured interview. BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of routine care and CMH were compared, and erroneous documentation was classified according to previous definitions in the literature. Erroneous documentation was risk stratified. RESULTS: 99 BPMH and CMH were compared. There were 14 medication omissions which occurred across 10 patients and 14 discrepancies across 12 patients. There was no association identified between erroneous documentation and pharmacist seniority/experience (p=0.25), where BPMH taken (p=0.7), day of week BPMH documented (p=0.45) or time since admission to when BPMH was documented (p=1). Patient age did not impact erroneous documentation rates (p=0.22). There was an association between the number of sources used to confirm a medication history and erroneous documentation incidence (p=0.035). The number of medications increased the rate of documentation error. While 85.19% (n=115) of erroneous documentation were deemed unlikely to cause patient discomfort or clinical deterioration, 1.48% (n=2) had the potential to result in severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Six out of seven BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of usual clinical practice are accurate. Major influences on accuracy include the number of medications and sources used. There is a low possibility that erroneous documentation by pharmacists will cause harm.

Reliability of Best Possible Medication Histories Completed by Non-admitted Patients in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Accreditation standards have outlined the need for staff in emergency departments to initiate the medication reconciliation process for patients who are at risk of adverse drug events. The authors hypothesized that a guided form could be used by non-admitted patients in the emergency department to assist with completion of a best possible medication history (BPMH). OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of patients in the non-acute care area of the emergency department who could complete a guided BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies (defined as no major discrepancies and no more than 1 moderate discrepancy). METHODS: This prospective exploratory study was conducted over 4 weeks in February and March 2016. Data were collected using the self-administered BPMH form, patient interviews, and a data collection form. After completion of the guided BPMH form, patients were randomly selected for interview by a pharmacy team member to ensure their self-completed BPMH forms were complete and accurate. Eligible patients were those with non-acute needs who had undergone triage to the waiting room. Patients who were already admitted and those with immediate triage to the acute care or trauma area of the emergency department were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients who were interviewed, 146 (91.3%) completed the form with no more than 1 moderate discrepancy (but some number of minor discrepancies). There were no discrepancies in 31 (19.4%) of the BPMH forms, and 101 (63.1%) of the forms had only minor discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients interviewed by the pharmacy team were able to complete the BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies. The self-administered BPMH form would be a useful tool to initiate medication reconciliation in the emergency department for this patient population, but used on its own, it would not be a reliable source of BPMH information, given the relatively low number of patients who completed the form with no discrepancies.

CONTEXTE: Les normes d'agrément ont souligné la nécessité pour le personnel des services des urgences d'amorcer le processus de bilan comparatif des médicaments chez les patients à risque d'événements indésirables liés aux médicaments. Les auteurs ont avancé que des patients au service des urgences ne requérant pas une hospitalisation pourraient remplir un formulaire dirigé et ainsi aider à établir leur meilleur schéma thérapeutique possible (MSTP). OBJECTIF: Déterminer le pourcentage de patients dans l'aire de soins non urgents du service des urgences qui sont en mesure de remplir un formulaire dirigé de MSTP sans divergence cliniquement significative (c'est-à-dire aucune divergence majeure et pas plus d'une divergence modérée). MÉTHODES: La présente étude préliminaire prospective a été menée sur une période de quatre semaines en février et en mars 2016. Les données ont été recueillies à l'aide d'un formulaire autoadministré de MSTP, d'entrevue avec les patients et d'un formulaire de collecte de données. Une fois les formulaires dirigés de MSTP remplis, des patients ont été sélectionnés aléatoirement et interrogés par un des membres de l'équipe de pharmacie afin de s'assurer de l'exhaustivité et de l'exactitude des renseignements fournis de soi-même. Les patients admissibles à l'étude étaient ceux ne nécessitant pas de soins urgents et ayant passé au triage dans la salle d'attente. Les patients déjà hospitalisés et ceux dirigés immédiatement après le triage dans l'aire de soins urgents ou de trauma du service des urgences ont été exclus. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 160 patients interrogés, 146 (91,3 %) avaient rempli le formulaire avec au plus une divergence modérée (mais un certain nombre de divergences mineures). Dans 31 (19,4 %) des formulaires de MSTP, il n'y avait aucune divergence et, dans 101 (63,1 %) des formulaires, il n'y avait que des divergences mineures. CONCLUSIONS: La plupart des patients interrogés par l'équipe de pharmacie étaient en mesure de remplir le formulaire de MSTP sans qu'apparaisse de divergence cliniquement significative. Le formulaire autoadministré de MSTP serait un outil pratique pour établir un bilan comparatif des médicaments dans le service des urgences pour cette population de patients, mais employé seul, il ne représenterait pas une source fiable d'information sur le MSTP, compte tenu du nombre relativement restreint de patients ayant rempli le formulaire sans qu'apparaisse de divergence.