RESUMO
DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. 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.
