The impact of pharmacists-led medicines reconciliation on healthcare outcomes in secondary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cheema E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5873985 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMedicines reconciliation-identifying and maintaining an accurate list of a patient's current medications-should be undertaken at all transitions of care and available to all patients.ObjectiveA self-completion web survey was conducted for chief pharmacists (or equivalent) to evaluate medicines reconciliation levels in secondary care mental health organisations.SettingThe survey was sent to secondary care mental health organisations in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.MethodThe survey was launched via Bristol Online Surveys. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data was collected through respondents free-text answers to specific questions.Main outcomes measureInvestigate how medicines reconciliation is delivered, incorporate a clear description of the role of pharmacy staff and identify areas of concern.ResultsForty-two (52 % response rate) surveys were completed. Thirty-seven (88.1 %) organisations have a formal policy for medicines reconciliation with defined steps. Results show that the pharmacy team (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians) are the main professionals involved in medicines reconciliation with a high rate of doctors also involved. Training procedures frequently include an induction by pharmacy for doctors whilst the pharmacy team are generally trained by another member of pharmacy. Mental health organisations estimate that nearly 80 % of medicines reconciliation is carried out within 24 h of admission. A full medicines reconciliation is not carried out on patient transfer between mental health wards; instead quicker and less exhaustive variations are implemented. 71.4 % of organisations estimate that pharmacy staff conduct daily medicine reconciliations for acute admission wards (Monday to Friday). However, only 38 % of organisations self-report to pharmacy reconciling patients' medication for other teams that admit from primary care.ConclusionMost mental health organisations appear to be complying with NICE guidance on medicines reconciliation for their acute admission wards. However, medicines reconciliation is conducted less frequently on other units that admit from primary care and rarely completed on transfer when it significantly differs to that on admission. Formal training and competency assessments on medicines reconciliation should be considered as current training varies and adherence to best practice is questionable.
| S-EPMC4828472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Despite the importance placed on the concept of the multidisciplinary team in relation to intermediate care (IC), little is known about community pharmacists' (CPs) involvement. Objective To determine CPs' awareness of and involvement with IC services, perceptions of the transfer of patients' medication information between healthcare settings and views of the development of a CP-IC service. Setting Community pharmacies in Northern Ireland. Methods A postal questionnaire, informed by previous qualitative work was developed and piloted. Main outcome measure CPs' awareness of and involvement with IC. Results The response rate was 35.3 % (190/539). Under half (47.4 %) of CPs 'agreed/strongly agreed' that they understood the term 'intermediate care'. Three quarters of respondents were either not involved or unsure if they were involved with providing services to IC. A small minority (1.2 %) of CPs reported that they received communication regarding medication changes made in hospital or IC settings 'all of the time'. Only 9.5 and 0.5 % of respondents 'strongly agreed' that communication from hospital and IC, respectively, was sufficiently detailed. In total, 155 (81.6 %) CPs indicated that they would like to have greater involvement with IC services. 'Current workload' was ranked as the most important barrier to service development. Conclusion It was revealed that CPs had little awareness of, or involvement with, IC. Communication of information relating to patients' medicines between settings was perceived as insufficient, especially between IC and community pharmacy settings. CPs demonstrated willingness to be involved with IC and services aimed at bridging the communication gap between healthcare settings.
| S-EPMC5124038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An audit of 143 surgical admissions showed that only 30% of general surgery and urology patients have complete medication charts on the day of surgery prior to going to theatre, compared to 94% of orthopaedic patients. This was despite having been seen previously in the pre-operative assessment clinic (POAC). These patients went to the wards post-operatively, where many then missed doses of their life-sustaining medications. Orthopaedic patients see a prescribing pharmacist in POAC who undertakes medicines reconciliation; this is performed by junior doctors for surgical patients. We designed three interventions to improve drug chart completion by junior doctors, and gathered prospective data for 22 weeks in the POAC. We also recorded attendance of junior doctors in the POAC and reasons for absence. Daily and weekly percentages of drug chart completion were plotted on a run chart. The baseline completion rate was 43%. This rose to 45% after the first and second interventions, and 51% after the third intervention. However, the completion rate remained markedly below our target of 94%. Junior doctors attended only 44% of POACs. They reported being "too busy to attend" 41% of the time, and could not be contacted on 11% of occasions. Junior doctors reported that they were unable to attend to both unwell inpatients and the POAC, the latter seeming less of a priority. This was despite a rota allocating doctors to attend POAC sessions free from clinical or teaching commitments. We were unable to increase the rate of drug chart completion with the resources available. We therefore recommend the employment of prescribing pharmacists in the POAC for general surgery and urology patients.
| S-EPMC4949617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Institute for Healthcare Improvement identifies medication reconciliation as the shared responsibility of nurses, pharmacists, and physicians, where each has a defined role. The study aims to assess the clinical impact of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation performed on day one of hospital admission to the internal medicine service.MethodsThis is a pilot prospective study conducted at two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Lebanon. Student pharmacists who were properly trained and closely supervised, collected the medication history, and pharmacists at the corresponding sites performed the reconciliation process. Interventions related to the unintended discrepancies were relayed to the medical team. The main outcome was the number of unintended discrepancies identified. The time needed for medication history, and the information sources used to complete the Best Possible Medication History were also assessed. The unintended discrepancies were classified by medication class and route of medication administration, by potential severity, and by proximal cause leading to the discrepancy. For the bivariate and multivariable analysis, the dependent variable was the incidence of unintended discrepancies. The "total number of unintended discrepancies" was dichotomized into yes (? 1 unintended discrepancy) or no (0 unintended discrepancies). Independent variables tested for their association with the dependent variable consisted of the following: gender, age, creatinine clearance, number of home medications, allergies, previous adverse drug reactions, and number of information sources used to obtain the BPMH. Results were assumed to be significant when p was <?0.05.ResultsDuring the study period, 204 patients were included, and 195 unintended discrepancies were identified. The most common discrepancies consisted of medication omission (71.8%), and the most common agents involved were dietary supplements (27.7%). Around 36% of the unintended discrepancies were judged as clinically significant, and only 1% were judged as serious. The most common interventions included the addition of a medication (71.8%) and the adjustment of a dose (12.8%). The number of home medications was significantly associated with the occurrence of unintended discrepancies (ORa?=?1.11 (1.03-1.19) p?=?0.007).ConclusionsPharmacy-led medication reconciliation upon admission, along with student pharmacist involvement and physician communication can reduce unintended discrepancies and improve medication safety and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6636006 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7313163 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6513651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Frameworks used in research impact evaluation studies vary widely and it remains unclear which methods are most appropriate for evaluating research impact in the field of surgical research. Therefore, we aimed to identify and review the methods used to assess the impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare and to identify determinants for surgical impact. METHODS:We searched journal databases up to March 10, 2020 for papers assessing the impact of surgical effectiveness trials on healthcare. Two researchers independently screened the papers for eligibility and performed a Risk of Bias assessment. Characteristics of both impact papers and trial papers were summarized. Univariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for finding research impact, which was defined as a change in healthcare practice. RESULTS:Sixty-one impact assessments were performed in 37 included impact papers. Some surgical trial papers were evaluated in more than one impact paper, which provides a total of 38 evaluated trial papers. Most impact papers were published after 2010 (n = 29). Medical records (n = 10), administrative databases (n = 22), and physician's opinion through surveys (n = 5) were used for data collection. Those data were analyzed purely descriptively (n = 3), comparing data before and after publication (n = 29), or through time series analyses (n = 5). Significant healthcare impact was observed 49 times and more often in more recent publications. Having impact was positively associated with using medical records or administrative databases (ref.: surveys), a longer timeframe for impact evaluation and more months between the publication of the trial paper and the impact paper, data collection in North America (ref.: Europe), no economic evaluation of the intervention, finding no significant difference in surgical outcomes, and suggesting de-implementation in the original trial paper. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Research impact evaluation receives growing interest, but still a small number of impact papers per year was identified. The analysis showed that characteristics of both surgical trial papers and impact papers were associated with finding research impact. We advise to collect data from either medical records or administrative databases, with an evaluation time frame of at least 4 years since trial publication.
| S-EPMC7244162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal translation of valid and relevant information in clinical practice is a problem for all health systems. Lack of information independent from commercial influences, limited efforts to actively implement evidence-based information and its limited comprehensibility are important determinants of this gap and may influence an excessive variability in physicians' prescriptions. This is quite noticeable in Italy, where the philosophy and methods of Evidence-Based Medicine still enjoy limited diffusion among practitioners. Academic detailing and pharmacist outreach visits are interventions of proven efficacy to make independent and evidence-based information available to physicians; this approach and its feasibility have not yet been tested on a large scale and, moreover, they have never been formally tested in Italy.Methods/designTwo RCTs are planned:1) a two-arm cluster RCT, carried out in Emilia-Romagna and Friuli Venezia Giulia, will evaluate the effectiveness of small group meetings, randomising about 150 Primary Care Groups (corresponding to about 2000 GPs) to pharmacist outreach visits on two different topics. Physicians' prescriptions (expressed as DDD per 1000 inhabitants/day), knowledge and attitudes (evaluated through the answers to a specific questionnaire) will be compared for target drugs in the two groups (receiving/not receiving each topic).2) A three-arm RCT, carried out in Sardinia, will evaluate both the effectiveness of one-to-one meetings (one pharmacist visiting one physician per time) and of a 'new' information format (compared to information already available) on changing physicians' prescription of specific drugs. About 900 single GPs will be randomised into three groups: physicians receiving a visit supported by "traditional" information material, those receiving a visit with "new" information material on the same topic and those not receiving any visit/material.DiscussionThe two proposed RCTs aim to evaluate the organisational feasibility and barriers to the implementation of independent information programs led by NHS pharmacists. The objective to assess a 10 or 15% decreases in the prescription of the targeted drugs is quite ambitious in such 'natural' settings, which will be minimally altered by the interventions themselves; this in spite of the quite large sample sizes used comparing to other studies of these kind. Complex interventions like these are not easy to evaluate, given the many different variables into play. Anyway, the pragmatic nature of the two RCTs appears to be also one of their major strengths, helping to provide a deeper insight on what is possible to achieve - in terms of independent information - in a National Health System, with special reference to Italy.Trial registrationISRCTN05866587 (cluster RCT) and ISRCTN28525676 (single GPs RCT).
| S-EPMC2100051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImproved medicines' management could lead to real and sustainable improvements to the care of older adults. The overuse of mental health medicines has featured in many reports, and insufficient patient monitoring has been identified as an important cause of medicine-related harms. Nurse-led monitoring using the structured adverse drug reaction (ADRe) profile identifies and addresses the adverse effects of mental health medicines. Our study investigates clinical impact and what is needed to sustain utilisation in routine practice in care homes.Methods and analysisThis process evaluation will use interviews and observations with the participants of all five homes involved in earlier research, and five newly recruited homes caring for people prescribed mental health medicines. The ADRe profile is implemented by nurses, within existing resources, to check for signs and symptoms of ADRs, initiate amelioration and share findings with pharmacists and prescribers for medication review. Outcome measures are the numbers and nature of problems addressed and understanding of changes needed to optimise clinical gain and sustain implementation. Data will be collected by 30 observations and 30 semistructured interviews. Clinical gains will be described and narrated. Interview analysis will be based on the constant comparative method.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was conferred by the National Health Service Wales Research Ethics Committee. If the ADRe profile can be sustained in routine practice, it has potential to (1) improve the lives of patients, for example, by reducing pain and sedation, and (2) assist in early identification of problems caused by ADRs. Therefore, in addition to peer-reviewed publications and conferences, we shall communicate our findings to healthcare professionals, policy-makers and sector regulators.Trial registration numberNCT03110471.
| S-EPMC6169755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring transitions of care, including hospital discharge, patients are at risk of drug-related problems (DRPs).AimTo investigate the impact of pharmacist-led services, specifically medication reconciliation at admission and/or interprofessional ward rounds on the number of DRPs at discharge.MethodIn this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we analyzed routinely collected data of patients discharged from internal medicine wards of a regional Swiss hospital that filled their discharge prescriptions in the hospital's community pharmacy between June 2016 and May 2019. Patients receiving one of the two or both pharmacist-led services (Study groups: Best Care = both services; MedRec = medication reconciliation at admission; Ward Round = interprofessional ward round), were compared to patients receiving standard care (Standard Care group). Standard care included medication history taken by a physician and regular ward rounds (physicians and nurses). At discharge, pharmacists reviewed discharge prescriptions filled at the hospital's community pharmacy and documented all DRPs. Multivariable Poisson regression analyzed the independent effects of medication reconciliation and interprofessional ward rounds as single or combined service on the frequency of DRPs.ResultsOverall, 4545 patients with 6072 hospital stays were included in the analysis (Best Care n = 72 hospital stays, MedRec n = 232, Ward Round n = 1262, and Standard Care n = 4506). In 1352 stays (22.3%) one or more DRPs were detected at hospital discharge. The combination of the two pharmacist-led services was associated with statistically significantly less DRPs compared to standard care (relative risk: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.16, 0.65). Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation alone showed a trend towards fewer DRPs (relative risk: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 1.03).ConclusionOur results support the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at admission in combination with interprofessional ward rounds to reduce the number of DRPs at hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC9938815 | biostudies-literature