Dataset Information

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful development and implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, and identified additional reports from reference lists, reviews, and patent databases. Reports were included if the electronic tool supported medication history taking and the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. Two researchers independently selected studies, evaluated the quality of reporting, and extracted data. RESULTS:Eighteen reports relative to 11 tools were included. There were eight quality improvement projects, five observational effectiveness studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT protocols (ie, descriptions of RCTs in progress), and two patents. All tools were developed in academic environments in North America. Most used electronic data from multiple sources and partially implemented functionalities considered to be important. Relevant information on functionalities and implementation features was frequently missing. Evaluations mainly focused on usability, adherence, and user satisfaction. One RCT evaluated the effect on potential adverse drug events. CONCLUSION:Successful implementation of electronic tools to support MedRec requires favorable context, properly designed tools, and attention to implementation features. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of these tools on the quality and safety of healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Marien S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654089 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

Marien Sophie S Krug Bruno B Spinewine Anne A

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20160614 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful d ...[more]

PMID: 27301747

Similar Datasets

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

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisional tools have demonstrated their importance in informing manufacturing and commercial decisions in the monoclonal antibody domain. Recent approved therapies in regenerative medicine have shown great clinical benefits to patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this review was to investigate what decisional tools are available and what issues and gaps have been raised for their use in regenerative medicine. METHODS:We systematically searched MEDLINE to identify articles on decision support tools relevant to tissue engineering, and cell and gene therapy, with the aim of identifying gaps for future decisional tool development. We included published studies in English including a description of decisional tools in regenerative medicines. We extracted data using a predesigned Excel table and assessed the data both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS:We identified 9 articles addressing key decisions in manufacturing and product development challenges in cell therapies. The decision objectives, parameters, assumptions, and solution methods were analyzed in detail. We found that all decisional tools focused on cell therapies, and 6 of the 9 reviews focused on allogeneic cell therapy products. We identified no available tools on tissue-engineering and gene therapy products. These studies addressed key decisions in manufacturing and product development challenges in cell therapies, such as choice of technology, through modeling. CONCLUSIONS:Our review identified a limited number of decisional tools. While the monoclonal antibodies and biologics decisional tool domain has been well developed and has shown great importance in driving more cost-effective manufacturing processes and better investment decisions, there is a lot to be learned in the regenerative medicine domain. There is ample space for expansion, especially with regard to autologous cell therapies, tissue engineering, and gene therapies. To consider the problem more comprehensively, the full needle-to-needle process should be modeled and evaluated.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) tools are becoming increasingly popular for helping patients' self-manage chronic conditions. Little research, however, has examined the effect of patients using eHealth tools to self-report their medication management and use. Similarly, there is little evidence showing how eHealth tools might prompt patients and health care providers to make appropriate changes to medication use.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of patients' use of eHealth tools on self-reporting adverse effects and symptoms that promote changes to medication use. Related secondary outcomes were also evaluated.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from January 1, 2000, to April 25, 2018. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included articles from the literature search were also screened to identify relevant studies. Title, abstract, and full-text review as well as data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Due to high heterogeneity, results were not meta-analyzed and instead presented as a narrative synthesis.ResultsA total of 14 studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 open-label intervention, were included, from which 11 unique eHealth tools were identified. In addition, 14 RCTs found statistically significant increases in positive medication changes as a result of using eHealth tools, as did the single open-label study. Moreover, 8 RCTs found improvement in patient symptoms following eHealth tool use, especially in adolescent asthma patients. Furthermore, 3 RCTs showed that eHealth tools might improve patient self-efficacy and self-management of chronic disease. Little or no evidence was found to support the effectiveness of eHealth tools at improving medication recommendations and reconciliation by clinicians, medication-use behavior, health service utilization, adverse effects, quality of life, or patient satisfaction. eHealth tools with multifaceted functionalities and those allowing direct patient-provider communication may be more effective at improving patient self-management and self-efficacy.ConclusionsEvidence suggests that the use of eHealth tools may improve patient symptoms and lead to medication changes. Patients generally found eHealth tools useful in improving communication with health care providers. Moreover, health-related outcomes among frequent eHealth tool users improved in comparison with individuals who did not use eHealth tools frequently. Implementation issues such as poor patient engagement and poor clinician workflow integration were identified. More high-quality research is needed to explore how eHealth tools can be used to effectively manage use of medications to improve medication management and patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

Publications

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets