Clinicians' use of Health Information Exchange technologies for medication reconciliation in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is essential for optimizing medication use. In part to promote effective medication reconciliation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) invested substantial resources in health information exchange (HIE) technologies. The objectives of this qualitative study were to characterize VA clinicians' use of HIE tools for medication reconciliation in their clinical practice and to identify facilitators and barriers. METHODS: We recruited inpatient and outpatient prescribers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and pharmacists at four geographically distinct VA medical centers for observations and interviews. Participants were observed as they interacted with HIE or medication reconciliation tools during routine work. Participants were interviewed about clinical decision-making pertaining to medication reconciliation and use of HIE tools, and about barriers and facilitators to use of the tools. Qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive approaches using a priori codes. RESULTS: A total of 63 clinicians participated. Over half (58%) were female, and the mean duration of VA clinical experience was 7 (range 0-32) years. Underlying motivators for clinicians seeking data external to their VA medical center were having new patients, current patients receiving care from an external institution, and clinicians' concerns about possible medication discrepancies among institutions. Facilitators for using HIE software were clinicians' familiarity with the HIE software, clinicians' belief that medication information would be available within HIE, and their confidence in the ability to find HIE medication-related data of interest quickly. Six overarching barriers to HIE software use for medication coordination included visual clutter and information overload within the HIE display; challenges with HIE interface navigation; lack of integration between HIE and other electronic health record interfaces, necessitating multiple logins and application switching; concerns with the dependability of HIE medication information; unfamiliarity with HIE tools; and a lack of HIE data from non-VA facilities. CONCLUSIONS: This study is believed to be the first to qualitatively characterize clinicians' HIE use with respect to medication reconciliation. Results inform recommendations to optimize HIE use for medication management activities. We expect that healthcare organizations and software vendors will be able to apply the findings to develop more effective and usable HIE information displays.

OPTimising MEDicine information handover after Discharge (OPTMED-D): protocol for development of a multifaceted intervention and stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GP) and community pharmacists need information about hospital discharge patients' medicines to continue their management in the community. This necessitates effective communication, collaboration, and reliable information-sharing. However, such handover is inconsistent, and whilst digital systems are in place to transfer information at transitions of care, these systems are passive and clinicians are not prompted about patients' transitions. There are also gaps in communication between community pharmacists and GPs. These issues impact patient safety, leading to hospital readmissions and increased healthcare costs. METHODS: A three-phased, multi-method study design is planned to trial a multifaceted intervention to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions. Phase 1 is the co-design of the intervention with stakeholders and end-users; phase 2 is the development of the intervention; phase 3 is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 clusters (community pharmacies). Expected intervention components will be a hospital pharmacist navigator, primary care medication management review services, and a digital solution for information sharing. Phase 3 will recruit 10 patients per pharmacy cluster/month to achieve a sample size of 2200 patients powered to detect a 5% absolute reduction in unplanned readmissions from 10% in the control group to 5% in the intervention at 30 days. The randomisation and intervention will occur at the level of the patient's nominated community pharmacy. Primary analysis will be a comparison of 30-day medication-related hospital readmissions between intervention and control clusters using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster (pharmacy) and a fixed effect for each step to account for secular trends. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000480583p , registered 19 April 2024.

Reprint of: Pharmacist-driven deprescribing initiative in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy, a broad term to describe the use of numerous and often unnecessary medications, has been connected to frailty, hospital admissions, falls, and even mortality. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the VIONE (vital, important, optional, not indicated, and every medication has an indication) dashboard to identify patients with polypharmacy and serve as a framework for deprescribing of medications across VHA facilities where it is used in a variety of practice settings by different disciplines. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the implementation of a pharmacist-led, system-wide, deprescribing initiative in the primary care setting. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Interdisciplinary education was provided through academic detailing. Subsequently, patients were identified for inclusion in the project using the VIONE dashboard focusing on those at highest risk of polypharmacy and moving down to the lowest risk. Interested patients underwent a medication reconciliation. A clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) then contacted the patient to discuss potential deprescribing options. Recommendations were relayed to the primary care provider (PCP) for final approval and communicated to the patient by the pharmacy team. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Primary care CPPs (n = 3) integrated deprescribing into their standard workload. This service was implemented in the primary care setting across an entire health care system consisting of 16 different primary care teams. EVALUATION METHODS: The initiative's impact was measured by the number of discontinued medications, the acceptance rate of recommendations by the PCP, the potential annualized cost avoidance, and the number of patients referred to CPP medication management clinics. RESULTS: Among 63 patients, a total of 352 medications were deprescribed resulting in a potential annualized cost avoidance of $184,221. The acceptance rate of discontinuation recommendations was 96.7%. Subsequently, 25.4% of patients were referred to pharmacist-led clinics for disease state management. CONCLUSION: Embedding deprescribing into standard CPP workflow within the primary care setting facilitated a way for polypharmacy reduction and allowed the expansion of pharmacy-led services at VA Butler Healthcare System.

Medication Optimization Protocol Efficacy for Geriatric Inpatients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is currently no consensus on clinically effective interventions for polypharmacy among older inpatients. Objective: To evaluate the effect of multidisciplinary team-based medication optimization on survival, unscheduled hospital visits, and rehospitalization in older inpatients with polypharmacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at 8 internal medicine inpatient wards within a community hospital in Japan. Participants included medical inpatients 65 years or older who were receiving 5 or more regular medications. Enrollment took place between May 21, 2019, and March 14, 2022. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2023 to May 2024. Intervention: The participants were randomly assigned to receive either an intervention for medication optimization or usual care including medication reconciliation. The intervention consisted of a medication review using the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions)/START (Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment) criteria, followed by a medication optimization proposal for participants and their attending physicians developed by a multidisciplinary team. On discharge, the medication optimization summary was sent to patients' primary care physicians and community pharmacists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death, unscheduled hospital visits, and rehospitalization within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the number of prescribed medications, falls, and adverse events. Results: Between May 21, 2019, and March 14, 2022, 442 participants (mean [SD] age, 81.8 [7.1] years; 223 [50.5%] women) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 215) and usual care (n = 227). The intervention group had a significantly lower percentage of patients with 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications than the usual care group at discharge (26.2% vs 33.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33-0.94]; P = .03), at 6 months (27.7% vs 37.5%; adjusted OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.86]; P = .01), and at 12 months (26.7% vs 37.4%; adjusted OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]; P = .007). The primary composite outcome occurred in 106 participants (49.3%) in the intervention group and 117 (51.5%) in the usual care group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.27]). Adverse events were similar between each group (123 [57.2%] in the intervention group and 135 [59.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of older inpatients with polypharmacy, the multidisciplinary deprescribing intervention did not reduce death, unscheduled hospital visits, or rehospitalization within 12 months. The intervention was effective in reducing the number of medications with no significant adverse effects on clinical outcomes, even among older inpatients with polypharmacy. Trial Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000035265.

Nurse-led medication management as a critical component of transitional care for preventing drug-related problems.

Drug-related problems (DRPs) are critical medical issues during transition from hospital to home with high prevalence. The application of a variety of interventional strategies as part of the transitional care has been studied for preventing DRPs. However, it remains challenging for minimizing DRPs in patients, especially in older adults and those with high risk of medication discrepancies after hospital discharge. In this narrative review, we demonstrated that age, specific medications and polypharmacy, as well as some patient-related and system-related factors all contribute to a higher prevalence of transitional DPRs, most of which could be largely prevented by enhancing nurse-led multidisciplinary medication reconciliation. Nurses' contributions during transitional period for preventing DRPs include information collection and evaluation, communication and education, enhancement of medication adherence, as well as coordination among healthcare professionals. We concluded that nurse-led strategies for medication management can be implemented to prevent or solve DRPs during the high-risk transitional period, and subsequently improve patients' satisfaction and health-related outcomes, prevent the unnecessary loss and waste of medical expenditure and resources, and increase the efficiency of the multidisciplinary teamwork during transitional care.

Improving Self-Perceived Competencies of Second-Year Pharmacy Students Through an Introductory Medication Reconciliation Rotation.

OBJECTIVE: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is an essential health care function that is particularly relevant to pharmacists' expertise and a learning opportunity for pharmacy students. Our objective was to assess change across clinical competence, confidence, and communication skills after the completion of a MedRec rotation by second-year pharmacy students. METHODS: A retrospective post-then-pre-survey including 29 questions was developed/delivered to students after the completion of required MedRec hours. The primary end point was the change in 3 domains via summed scores from individual questions. Cohen's difference (d) was used to determine group effect size change. The secondary end points included individual question change, perceived patient impact, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Of 115 second-year pharmacy students, 81.7% (n = 94) participated in the study. Students self-reported increases on the Likert scale (0-10) of 2.49 ± 1.90 in clinical competency domain, 3.57 ± 2.13 in confidence domain , and 3.12 ± 2.15 in communication skills domain, representing statistically significant and large group effect changes across all 3. A total of 21 of the 22 individual questions had large group effect changes; 1 question (nursing communications) had a moderate group effect change. Student perception of MedRec impact on patient care (Likert scale 0-10) was positive: post-rotation score 7.39 ± 1.57. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first larger-scale study that examines student-evaluated outcomes of a MedRec-based rotation. Students self-reported high levels of post-rotation competency across all domains; students from ethnic minorities and with less work/MedRec experience increased their lower pre-rotation scores to statistically similar post-rotation scores, compared with non-minority and more experienced peers. Further study of the model and outcomes is advised.

A national survey on assessment of knowledge, perceptions, practice, and barriers among hospital pharmacists towards medication reconciliation in United Arab Emirates.

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) helps prevent medication errors. This cross-sectional, nationwide study assessed the knowledge, perceptions, practice, and barriers toward MedRec amongst hospital pharmacy practitioners in the United Arab Emirates. A total of 342 conveniently chosen stratified hospital pharmacists responded to the online survey (88.6% response rate). Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied at alpha = 0.05 and post hoc analysis was performed using Bonferroni test. The overall median knowledge score was 9/12 with IQR (9-11) with higher levels among clinical pharmacists (p < 0.001) and previously trained pharmacists (p < 0.001). Of the respondents, 35.09% (n = 120) practiced MedRec for fewer than five patients per week despite having a strong perception of their role in this process. The overall median perception score was 32.5/35 IQR (28-35) with higher scores among clinical pharmacists (p < 0.001) and those who attended previous training or workshops (p < 0.001). The median barrier score was 24/30 with an IQR (21-25), where lack of training and knowledge were the most common barriers. Results showed that pharmacists who did not attend previous training or workshops on MedRec had higher barrier levels than those who attended (p = 0.012). This study emphasizes the significance of tackling knowledge gaps, aligning perceptions with practice, and suggesting educational interventions.

Pharmacist-Led Medication Management in Acute Geriatric Medicine and Its Associations with Rehospitalizations: A Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalization and discharge in older patients are critical and clinical pharmacists have shown to ameliorate risks. Our objective was to assess their benefit as part of the geriatric team regarding rehospitalizations and related outcomes after discharge focusing on general practitioners' decision to continue or change discharge medication (GPD). METHODS: Prospective implementation study with 6-month follow-up in an acute geriatric clinic. Patients ≥70 years with comorbidities, impairments, and a current drug therapy were consecutively assigned to three groups: control group (CG), implementation group (IG), and wash-out group (WG). CG only received medication reconciliation (MR) at admission; IG and their hospital physicians received a pharmaceutical counseling and medication management; during WG, pharmaceutical counseling except for MR was discontinued. We used a negative-binomial model to calculate rehospitalizations and days spent at home as well as a recurrent events survival model to investigate recurrent rehospitalizations. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients (mean age 82 years, 76 women [57.6%]) finished the project. In most of the models for rehospitalizations, a positive GPD led to fewer events. We also found an effect of pharmaceutical counseling on rehospitalizations and recurrent rehospitalizations in the CG versus WG but not in the CG versus IG models. 95.3% of medication recommendations by the pharmacist in the clinic setting were accepted. While the number of positive GPDs in CG was low (38%), pharmaceutical counseling directly to the GP in IG led to a higher number of positive GPDs (60%). DISCUSSION: Although rehospitalizations were not directly reduced by our intervention in the CG versus IG, the pharmacist's acceptance rate in the hospital was very high and a positive GPD led to fewer rehospitalization in most models.

Practice-enhancing publications about the medication-use process in 2021.

PURPOSE: This article identifies, prioritizes, and summarizes published literature on the medication-use process (MUP) from calendar year 2021 that can impact health-system pharmacy daily practice. The MUP is the foundational system that provides the framework for safe medication utilization within the healthcare environment. The MUP is defined in this article as having the following components: prescribing/transcribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring, and monitoring/medication reconciliation. Articles evaluating at least one step of the MUP were assessed for their usefulness toward practice improvement. SUMMARY: A PubMed search was conducted in January 2022 for articles published in calendar year 2021 using targeted Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords, and searches of the table of contents of selected pharmacy journals were conducted, providing a total of 7,178 articles. A thorough review identified 79 potentially practice-enhancing articles: 15 for prescribing/transcribing, 17 for dispensing, 4 for administration, 21 for monitoring, and 22 for monitoring/medication reconciliation. Ranking of the articles for importance by peers led to the selection of key articles from each category. The highest-ranked articles are briefly summarized, with a mention of their importance within health-system pharmacy. The other articles are listed for further review and evaluation. CONCLUSION: It is important to routinely review the published literature and to incorporate significant findings into daily practice. This article assists in identifying and summarizing the most impactful publications. Health-system pharmacists have an active role in improving the MUP in their institution, and awareness of the significant published studies can assist in changing practice at the institutional level.

Medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Medication errors such as medication discrepancies are known as one of the leading cause of death. Medication discrepancies mostly occur during admission and at time transfer of care and discharge. Medication reconciliation process has pivotal role to avert medication discrepancies and improve patient safety and quality. Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are prone to medication discrepancies due to acute manifestations, simultaneous use of different medicines and having different co-morbidities. This study aimed to determine medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients with ACS. In an observational study, patients with ACS admitted to a specialized Hospital in Baneh County, Kurdistan province during September 2023 and January 2024 were included. Medication reconciliation process was done when the patient was admitted. The history of medicine use was collected through interviews with the patient, their caregivers, as well as observing the medicines that were accompany with the patients. Number and type of unintentional medication discrepancies and related factors were evaluated. A total of 280 ACS patients (mean age: 63.8 ± 14.2, male gender: 59.3%) were included in the study. About 68% had at least 2 underlying diseases. The mean daily medicines taken by the patients during admission were 8.5 ± 1.54. The number (percentage) of unintentional inconsistency was observed in 78 (27.3%), and omission (39.7%) and changes in dosage (20.5%) had the highest frequency of unintentional medication discrepancies, respectively. Cardiovascular agents such as anti-dyslipidemia and antiplatelet had the highest frequency of unintentional medication discrepancies. The number of underlying diseases and daily medications before hospitalization increase the odds of discrepancies by 2.15 and 1.49 times, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Medication discrepancies identified by medication reconciliation among patients is relatively common. Unintentional medication discrepancies that have the potential to harm the ACS patients should be given more attention, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

Analysis of clinical outcomes in older individuals who received pharmaceutical care and posthospital discharge follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence underscores the need to assess potential clinical outcomes resulting from pharmaceutical care interventions and to monitor patient's progress to evaluate their clinical evolution, which is crucial for bolstering the relevance of implementing pharmaceutical care in healthcare services. AIMS: To conduct an in-depth analysis of pharmaceutical care practices in a geriatric ward and monitor the clinical outcomes of older people served. METHODS: This interventionist study was conducted in the geriatrics ward of a Brazilian university hospital. The research intervention occurred between January and May 2022, with a follow-up conducted for up to 90 days after patients' hospital discharge. Older patients in the geriatrics ward received pharmaceutical care, including medication reconciliation, medication review, and pharmacotherapeutic follow-up, aimed at identifying and resolving drug-related problems (DRPs). The clinical relevance of DRPs and pharmaceutical recommendations was evaluated. Additionally, analyses were conducted on mortality and rehospitalization outcomes in older patients at 30, 60, and 90 days following initial hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of the patients evaluated, a significant 88.3% exhibited at least one DRP (with an average of 2.6 ± 1.9 DRPs per patient), with the majority classified as need/indication problems (38.9%). The acceptance rate of pharmaceutical recommendations was 80.9%, with the majority categorized as very significant relevance (60.4%). DRPs were predominantly of serious clinical relevance (50.9%). In patients whose clinical indicators could be monitored, 95.5% showed some clinical response (in vital signs, laboratory tests and/or clinical status evolution) potentially related to resolved DRPs. Association analysis revealed that a higher number of medications in use before hospitalization correlated with a greater identification of DRPs during hospitalization (p = 0.03). At hospital discharge, 23.6% of patients were no longer using polypharmacy. In total, 16 patients (26.7%) died during the study period. Among patients who did not die during hospitalization (n = 54), 20 patients (37%) experienced rehospitalizations within 90 days following discharge. CONCLUSION: This study facilitated the consolidation of pharmaceutical care implementation in a geriatric ward. We conducted identification, evaluation, and proposed evidence-based solutions, as well as monitored cases for outcome analysis. It is anticipated that this methodology will inspire future research and the implementation of pharmaceutical care-related services.

Development and validation of a new drug-focused predictive risk score for postoperative delirium in orthopaedic and trauma surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is the most common complication following surgery in elderly patients. During pharmacist-led medication reconciliation (PhMR), a predictive risk score considering delirium risk-increasing drugs and other available risk factors could help to identify risk patients. METHODS: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery patients aged ≥ 18 years with PhMR were included in a retrospective observational single-centre study 03/2022-10/2022. The study cohort was randomly split into a development and a validation cohort (6:4 ratio). POD was assessed through the 4 A's test (4AT), delirium diagnosis, and chart review. Potential risk factors available at PhMR were tested via univariable analysis. Significant variables were added to a multivariable logistic regression model. Based on the regression coefficients, a risk score for POD including delirium risk-increasing drugs (DRD score) was established. RESULTS: POD occurred in 42/328 (12.8%) and 30/218 (13.8%) patients in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Of the seven evaluated risk factors, four were ultimately tested in a multivariable logistic regression model. The final DRD score included age (66-75 years, 2 points; > 75 years, 3 points), renal impairment (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2, 1 point), anticholinergic burden (ACB-score ≥ 3, 1 point), and delirium risk-increasing drugs (n ≥ 2; 2 points). Patients with ≥ 4 points were classified as having a high risk for POD. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the risk score model were 0.89 and 0.81 for the development and the validation cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSION: The DRD score is a predictive risk score assessable during PhMR and can identify patients at risk for POD. Specific preventive measures concerning drug therapy safety and non-pharmacological actions should be implemented for identified risk patients.

The vital role of clinical pharmacy services within the hospital at home interdisciplinary team.

PURPOSE: Hospital at home (HaH) program development, spurred by hospital congestion during the COVID-19 pandemic, is moving from a novel idea to a standard of inpatient practice. Understanding pharmacy's clinical role in the HaH patient care team is exceedingly important as programs across the country continue to develop, implement, and expand. The purpose of this study is to describe how clinical pharmacy services are currently provided for home hospital patients and to explain the vital role of pharmacists within the HaH care team. DESCRIPTION: A descriptive study was designed to evaluate pharmacy services provided for home hospital patients from January 1, 2023, to February 28, 2023. Prior to the study period, a focused group of pharmacists routinely active in HaH patient care met to define a standard process for documenting pharmacy services using an electronic documentation system (i-Vent) within the EHR. During the study period, a total of 221 patients were admitted to home hospital at either site representing 3,258 inpatient medication orders with 2,997 medication administrations. Pharmacists signed 903 progress notes and documented 561 interventions across all types. The top 3 pharmacy intervention types were drug administration change (37%), medication reconciliation (29%), and antimicrobial stewardship (15%). Each of the top 3 types were further evaluated by subtype. CONCLUSION: Documented pharmacy services encompassed a variety of intervention types. The overwhelming majority of patients admitted to the program received pharmacy consultative services, demonstrating how pivotal pharmacists are to the operational success of these programs and clinical care of HaH patients. More research is needed to expose pharmacy potential and facilitate growth for pharmacists practicing in HaH programs.

Optimisation of medication reconciliation using queueing theory: a computer experiment.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) in hospitals is an important tool to enhance the continuity of care, but completing MedRec is challenging. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether queueing theory could be used to compare various interventions to optimise the MedRec process to ultimately reduce the number of patients discharged prior to MedRec being completed. Queueing theory, the mathematical study of waiting lines or queues, has not been previously applied in hospital pharmacies but enables comparisons without interfering with the baseline workflow. METHOD: Possible interventions to enhance the MedRec process (replacing in-person conversations with telephone conversations, reallocating pharmacy technicians (PTs) or adjusting their working schedule) were compared in a computer experiment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with an incomplete discharge MedRec. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible to add a real-life post hoc intervention (PTs starting their shift later) to the theoretical interventions. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: The queueing model showed that the number of patients with an incomplete discharge MedRec decreased from 37.2% in the original scenario to approximately 16% when the PTs started their shift 2 h earlier and 1 PT was reassigned to prepare the discharge MedRec. The number increased with the real-life post hoc intervention (PTs starting later), which matches a decrease in the computer experiment when started earlier. CONCLUSION: Using queueing theory in a computer experiment could identify the most promising theoretical intervention to decrease the percentage of patients discharged prior to MedRec being completed.

Impact of a patient risk-scoring tool pilot on prioritization of pharmacy-conducted medication histories.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% to 70% of patients have at least 1 medication discrepancy in their initial medication history. These discrepancies can lead to errors on admission and discharge orders and have the potential to cause patient harm and incur added costs associated with increased length of stay and readmission rates. Several studies have demonstrated improved medication history accuracy with pharmacy-conducted services, but variations in practice exist due to challenges with workflow and resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the impact of implementing a patient risk-scoring tool for the prioritization of medication history review by pharmacy staff. METHODS: This quasi-experimental, single-center study was conducted at a 948-bed academic medical center as a pilot study with the medication history team which consists of pharmacists and certified pharmacy technicians in the emergency department. The endpoints assessed included pharmacy completion rate of patients in the high-risk category, overall pharmacy conducted medication history rate, and the proportion of medication discrepancies identified after reconciliation. RESULTS: The number of medication histories completed by pharmacy (n=849) decreased by 5.7% in the postintervention period (P = 0.002). Between the preintervention and postintervention period, there were fewer low-risk patients being captured by pharmacy (89.7% to 59.9%, respectively). There was also an increase in the number of medium-risk (Δ=25.4%) and high-risk patients (Δ=4.4%) being captured by pharmacy staff (P < 0.017, α = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Use of a risk-scoring tool allowed pharmacy staff to prioritize workflow and capture more high-risk patients for medication history.

Assessing feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up among older adults at community pharmacy: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication review with follow-up is essential for optimising medication utilisation among the older adult population in primary healthcare. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing medication reviews with follow-up for older adults in community pharmacies and examined potential outcomes on medication use. METHOD: A pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted with 4 cluster-randomised community pharmacies to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Two community pharmacies served as intervention and control groups. Both groups recruited older adults over 60 who were followed over 6 months. The translated Medication use Questionnaire (MedUseQ) was administered at baseline and 6 months for both groups. The outcomes were to assess the feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up and the probable medication use outcomes from the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention and control groups comprised 14 and 13 older adults. A total of 35 recommendations were made by pharmacists in the intervention group and 8 in the control group. MedUseQ was easily administered, providing some evidence the feasibility of the intervention. However, there were feasibility challenges such as a lack of pharmacists, collaborative practice, difficulties with the tool language, time constraints, and limited funds. Questionnaire results provided a signal of improvement in medication administration, adherence, and polypharmacy among intervention participants. The incidence of drug related problems was significantly higher in the control group (median = 1) after 6 months, U = 15, z = - 2.98, p = 0.01. CONCLUSION: Medication review with follow-up is potentialy practical in community pharmacies, but there are feasibility issues. While these challenges can be addressed, it is essential to study larger sample sizes to establish more robust evidence regarding outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT05297461.

Approaches to medication history taking in different hospital settings: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: A comprehensive medication history can contribute to safe therapy. Many approaches aiming to improve medication history taking require significant human resources. To design an efficient process that delivers high-quality medication histories, the individual requirements and resources of a given setting need to be considered. We aimed to provide an overview of existing approaches to medication history taking and their performance in different settings to potentially support the selection of an appropriate procedure. METHODS: We searched 3 literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) for publications on approaches to medication history taking and analyzed them with regard to their key components as well as the setting, patient population, assessed outcomes, and efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 65 publications were included and analyzed. The majority of the reported approaches relied on involvement of dedicated staff (n = 43), followed by process-oriented interventions (eg, checklists; n = 15) and information technology (IT)-guided interventions (n = 11). A mean (SD) of 6 (2.9) outcomes were described in each study. Medication discrepancies were reported in 89% of all studies, yet about 75 different descriptions of this outcome were used, making it difficult to compare study results. Only 11 studies applied a sample size calculation and statistical tests. Of those, 10 reported a positive effect of their respective intervention on the quality of medication histories. CONCLUSION: Most approaches focused on pharmacy staff, which are associated with considerable cost and resources. Therefore, IT-based approaches and patient engagement should be investigated as cost-effective alternatives and tested for superiority in the same setting. Reporting guidelines and standardized methodology are needed to improve the comparability of such studies.

A newly developed algorithm for switching outpatient medications to medications listed in the hospital formulary: a prospective real-word evaluation in patients admitted electively to hospital.

PURPOSE: In many countries, outpatient and inpatient care are separated. During hospitalization, therefore, switching the outpatient medication to medication of the hospital formulary is required. METHODS: We newly designed a switching algorithm in six switching steps (S0-S5) and conducted a study at Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg (300 beds, 80% civilians). We performed (i) a medication reconciliation to obtain information on outpatient medications and (ii) a medication review to solve drug-related-problems, e.g., drug-drug interactions. We applied (iii) the algorithm to switch medications to the hospital formulary. RESULTS: (i) We identified 475 outpatient medications (median per patient: 4; Q25/Q75 2/7) in 100 patients consecutively admitted to hospital (median age: 71; Q25/Q75: 64/80 years). Of 475 medications, the switching algorithm could not be used since product names were missing in 23.9% and strength in 1.7%. In 3.2%, switching was not required since medication was not prescribed during the hospital stay. (ii) Drug-drug interactions were identified in 31 of 79 patients with more than one medication. (iii) Of 475 medications, 18.5% were on the hospital formulary and therefore did not need to be  switched (S0), 0.2% were on a substitution-exclusion list not allowing switching (S1), 42.0% were switched to a generic medication of the hospital formulary (S2), 1.7% to a therapeutically equivalent medication (S3), 0.4% were patient-individually switched (S4), and for 8.2% a standardized/patient-individual switching was not possible (S5). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comprehensive medication reconciliation, patient- and medication-related information for switching medications to the hospital formulary was often missing. Once all the necessary information was available, standardized switching could be easily carried out according to a newly developed switching algorithm.

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.