Dataset Information

Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on 30-Day Returns to Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

According to international recommendations, hospitals should use medication reconciliation to prevent medication errors and improve patient safety.

Objective

To assess the impact of medication reconciliation at hospital admission on patient-centered health care outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

This parallel group, open-label randomized controlled trial used centralized randomization to the intervention group (ie, individuals with medication reconciliation) or control group (ie, individuals with only standard, physician-acquired medication history). Outcome assessors and data analysts were blinded to group allocation. Participants included 1702 patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions at 2 regional secondary teaching hospitals in southern Switzerland. Study duration was 14.5 months, from November 1, 2018, to January 15, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 2018 through March 2020.

Interventions

Medication reconciliation was performed at hospital admission in 3 steps: (1) the pharmacy assistant obtained the list of the patient's current medications (ie, the best possible medication history [BPMH]); (2) the clinical pharmacist led reconciliation of the BPMH with the list of home medications recorded at hospital admission by the attending physician (according to the hospital standard procedure); and (3) medication discrepancies were communicated to the attending physician, and, when necessary, medications prescribed at admission were adapted.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was a composite postdischarge health care use variable quantified as the proportion of patients with unplanned all-cause hospital visits (including visits to the emergency department and hospital readmissions) within 30 days after discharge from the hospital when medication reconciliation took place. A time-to-event analysis was performed.

Results

Among 1702 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 86.0 [79.0-89.0] years; 720 [42.3%] men), 866 patients (50.9%) were allocated to the intervention group and 836 patients (49.1%) to the control group. The primary outcome occurred among 340 participants (39.3%) in the intervention group and 330 participants (39.5%) in the control group (P = .93). In time-to-event analyses at study closeout, unplanned all-cause hospital visits to the emergency department (log-rank P = .08) and unplanned all-cause hospital readmissions (log-rank P = .10) occurred similarly in the intervention and control groups.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that medication reconciliation at hospital admission has no impact on postdischarge health care outcomes among patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03654963.

SUBMITTER: Ceschi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8446815 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Transitions of care often lead to medication errors and unnecessary healthcare utilization. Medication reconciliation has been repeatedly shown to reduce this risk. However, the great majority of evidence is limited to the provision of medication reconciliation within clinical trials and countries with well-established clinical pharmacy. Thus, this pragmatic, prospective, controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of routine pharmacist-led medication reconciliation compared to standard care on medication errors and unplanned healthcare utilization in adult general medical patients hospitalized in a teaching hospital in Slovenia. All patients hospitalized in a ward where medication reconciliation was integrated into routine clinical practice were included in the intervention group and received admission and discharge medication reconciliation, coupled with patient counselling. The control group consisted of randomly selected patients from the remaining medical wards. The primary study outcome was unplanned healthcare utilization within 30 days of discharge, and the secondary outcomes were clinically important medication errors at hospital discharge and serious unplanned healthcare utilization within 30 days of discharge. Overall, 414 patients (53.4% male, median 71 years) were included-225 in the intervention group and 189 in the control group. In the intervention group, the number of patients with clinically important medication errors at discharge was significantly lower (intervention vs control group: 9.3% vs 61.9%). Multiple logistic regression revealed that medication reconciliation reduced the likelihood of a clinically important medication error by 20-fold, while a higher number of medications on admission was associated with an increased likelihood. However, no significant differences were noted in any and serious unplanned healthcare utilization (intervention vs control group: 33.9% vs 27.8% and 20.3% vs 14.6%, respectively). The likelihood of serious healthcare utilization increased with the age of the patient, the number of medications on admission and being hospitalized for an acute medical condition. Our pragmatic trial confirmed that medication reconciliation, even when performed as part of routine clinical practice, led to a substantial reduction in the risk of clinically important medication errors at hospital discharge but not to a reduction in healthcare utilization. Medication reconciliation is a fundamental, albeit not sufficient, element to ensure patient safety after hospital discharge. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?id=NCT06207500, identifier NCT06207500.

Project description:Importance:Adverse drug events (ADEs) account for up to 16% of emergency department (ED) visits and 7% of hospital admissions. Medication reconciliation is required for hospital accreditation because it can reduce medication discrepancies, but there is no evidence that reducing discrepancies reduces ADEs or other adverse outcomes. Objective:To evaluate whether electronic medication reconciliation reduces ADEs, medication discrepancies, and other adverse outcomes compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cluster randomized trial involved 3491 patients who were discharged from 2 medical units and 2 surgical units at the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, between October 2014 and November 2016. Data analysis took place from July 2017 to July 2019. Intervention:The RightRx intervention electronically retrieved community drugs from the provincial insurer and aligned them with in-hospital drugs to facilitate reconciliation and communication at care transitions. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was ADEs in 30 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included medication discrepancies, ED visits, hospital readmissions, and a composite outcome of ED visits, readmissions, and death up to 90 days after discharge. Results:Of 4656 eligible patients, 3567 (76.6%) consented to participate (2060 [57.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 69.8 [14.9] years). Overall, 76 patients died during the hospital stay, so 3491 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of ADEs between intervention and control groups (76 [4.6%] vs 73 [4.0%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.33-1.48), ED visits (433 [26.2%] vs 488 [26.6%]; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.36-1.42), hospital readmission (170 [10.3%] vs 261 [14.2%]; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-1.14), or the composite outcome (447 [27.0%] vs 506 [27.6%]; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.27) at 30 days. Medication discrepancies were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group (437 [26.4%] vs 1029 [56.0%]; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.57). Changes made to community medications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and new medications (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18) were significant risk factors for ADEs. Conclusions and Relevance:Electronic medication reconciliation reduced medication discrepancies but did not reduce ADEs or other adverse outcomes. Hospital accreditation should focus on interventions that reduce the risk of adverse events for patients with multiple changes to community medications. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01179867.

Project description:BackgroundIn hospital surgical wards, patients are at higher risk for medication errors, in part because physicians may not consider themselves sufficiently trained to prescribe medications. Hence, collaborative teamwork involving the pharmacist is needed.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of medication reconciliation directed by pharmacists on decreasing medication discrepancies after discharge from the surgical ward.MethodsPatients admitted to the surgical unit at a tertiary teaching hospital in Amman, Jordan, between July 2017 and July 2018 were selected and randomly assigned to either the control or the intervention group. Upon admission, the number and kinds of unintentional medication discrepancies were determined for both groups. Medication reconciliation was then provided to patients in the intervention group. The number of unintentional discrepancies was re-evaluated upon discharge for both groups. To assess differences between the control and intervention groups, the χ2 or Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables and an independent-sample t test for continuous data. A paired t test was conducted to determine whether the number of medication discrepancies was reduced as a result of pharmacists' recommendations.ResultsA total of 123 patients met the inclusion criteria, 61 in the intervention group and 62 in the control group. Discrepancies of omission and wrong dose constituted 41 (77%) of the 53 discrepancies in the intervention group and 25 (76%) of the 33 discrepancies in the control group. The number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly reduced from admission to discharge in both the intervention group (p = 0.002) and the control group (p = 0.007). Of 53 recommendations made by pharmacists, 20 (38%) were accepted by the treating physician, and all of these discrepancies were resolved.ConclusionsThis study sheds light on the existence of unintentional medication discrepancies upon admission for surgical patients, which may expose the patients to potential harm upon discharge from hospital. Additional studies with a larger sample size are needed to gain further insights on pharmacists' role in implementing medication reconciliation for surgical patients.

Project description:ImportanceValue-based care within accountable care organizations (ACOs) has magnified the importance of reducing preventable hospital readmissions. Community health worker (CHW) interventions may address patients' unmet psychosocial and clinical care needs but have been underused in inpatient and postdischarge care.ObjectiveTo determine if pairing hospitalized patients with ACO insurance with CHWs would reduce 30-day readmission rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted in 6 general medicine hospital units within 1 academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants included adults hospitalized from April 1, 2017, through March 31, 2019, who had ACO insurance and were at risk for 30-day readmission based on a hospital readmission algorithm. The main inclusion criterion was frequency of prior nonelective hospitalizations (≥2 in the past 3 months or ≥3 in the 12 months prior to enrollment). Data were analyzed from February 1, 2018, through March 3, 2021.InterventionCHWs met with intervention participants prior to discharge and maintained contact for 30 days postdischarge to assist participants with clinical access and social resources via telephone calls, text messages, and field visits. CHWs additionally provided psychosocial support and health coaching, using motivational interviewing, goal-setting, and other behavioral strategies. The control group received usual care, which included routine care from primary care clinics and any outpatient referrals made by hospital case management or social work at the time of discharge.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day hospital readmissions. Secondary outcomes included 30-day missed primary care physician or specialty appointments.ResultsA total of 573 participants were enrolled, and 550 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.1 [15.7] years; 266 [48.4%] women) were included in analysis, with 277 participants randomized to the intervention group and 273 participants randomized to the control group. At baseline, participants had a mean (SD) of 3 (0.8) hospitalizations in the prior 12 months. There were 432 participants (78.5%) discharged home and 127 participants (23.1%) discharged to a short rehabilitation stay prior to returning home. Compared with participants in the control group, participants in the intervention group were less likely to be readmitted within 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90) and to miss clinic appointments within 30 days (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81). A post hoc subgroup analysis showed that compared with control participants, intervention participants discharged to rehabilitation had a reduction in readmissions (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.31), but there was no significant reduction for those discharged home (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41-1.12).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that pairing ACO-insured inpatient adults with CHWs reduced readmissions and missed outpatient visits 30 days postdischarge. The effect was significant for those discharged to short-term rehabilitation but not for those discharged home.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03085264.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Admission medication history (AMH) errors frequently cause medication order errors and patient harm. OBJECTIVE:To quantify AMH error reduction achieved when pharmacy staff obtain AMHs before admission medication orders (AMO) are placed. METHODS:This was a three-arm randomised controlled trial of 306 inpatients. In one intervention arm, pharmacists, and in the second intervention arm, pharmacy technicians, obtained initial AMHs prior to admission. They obtained and reconciled medication information from multiple sources. All arms, including the control arm, received usual AMH care, which included variation in several common processes. The primary outcome was severity-weighted mean AMH error score. To detect AMH errors, all patients received reference standard AMHs, which were compared with intervention and control group AMHs. AMH errors and resultant AMO errors were independently identified and rated by ?2 investigators as significant, serious or life threatening. Each error was assigned 1, 4 or 9 points, respectively, to calculate severity-weighted AMH and AMO error scores for each patient. RESULTS:Patient characteristics were similar across arms (mean±SD?age 72±16 years, number of medications 15±7). Analysis was limited to 278 patients (91%) with reference standard AMHs. Mean±SD AMH errors per patient in the usual care, pharmacist and technician arms were 8.0±5.6, 1.4±1.9?and 1.5±2.1, respectively (p<0.0001). Mean±SD?severity-weighted AMH error scores were 23.0±16.1, 4.1±6.8?and 4.1±7.0 per patient, respectively (p<0.0001). These AMH errors led to a mean±SD of 3.2±2.9, 0.6±1.1?and 0.6±1.1 AMO errors per patient, and mean severity-weighted AMO error scores of 6.9±7.2, 1.5±2.9?and 1.2±2.5 per patient, respectively (both p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacists and technicians reduced AMH errors and resultant AMO errors by over 80%. Future research should examine other sites and patient-centred outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02026453.

Project description:ImportanceThe downward trend in readmissions has recently slowed. New enhancements to hospital readmission reduction efforts are needed. Structured assessment of patient readiness for discharge has been recommended as an addition to discharge preparation standards of care to assist with tailoring of risk-mitigating actions.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of unit-based implementation of readiness evaluation and discharge intervention protocols on readmissions and emergency department or observation visits.Design, setting, and participantsThe Readiness Evaluation and Discharge Interventions (READI) cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in medical-surgical units of 33 Magnet hospitals between September 15, 2014, and March 31, 2017, included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients discharged to home. Baseline and risk-adjusted intent-to-treat analyses used difference-in-differences multilevel logistic regression models with controls for patient characteristics.InterventionsOf 2 adult medical-surgical nursing units from each hospital, 1 was randomized to the intervention and 1 to usual care conditions. Using the 8-item Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale, the 33 intervention units implemented a sequence of protocols with increasing numbers of components: READI1, in which nurses assessed patients to inform discharge preparation; READI2, which added patient self-assessment; and READI3, which added an instruction to act on a specified Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale cutoff score indicative of low readiness.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day return to hospital (readmission or emergency department and observation visits). Intervention units above median baseline readmission rate (>11.3%) were categorized as high-readmission units. Among the 33 intervention units, 17 were low-readmission units and 16 were high-readmission units.ResultsThe sample included 144 868 patient discharges (mean [SD] age, 59.6 [17.5] years; 51% female; 74 605 in the intervention group and 70 263 in the control group); 17 667 (12.2%) were readmitted and 12 732 (8.8%) had an emergency department visit or observation stay. None of the READI protocols reduced the primary outcome of return to hospital in intent-to-treat analysis of the full sample. In exploratory subgroup analysis, when patient self-assessments were combined with readiness assessment by nurses (READI2), readmissions were reduced by 1.79 percentage points (95% CI, -3.20 to -0.40 percentage points; P = .009) on high-readmission units. With nurse assessment alone and on low-readmission units, results were mixed.Conclusions and relevanceImplemented in a broad range of hospitals and patients, the READI interventions were not effective in reducing return to hospital. However, adding a structured discharge readiness assessment that incorporates the patient's own perspective to usual discharge care practices holds promise for mitigating high rates of return to the hospital following discharge.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01873118.

Project description:ObjectiveMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is a relevant safety procedure in medication management at transitions of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of MedRec, including a best possible medication history (BPMH) compared with a standard medication history in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward.DesignProspective interventional study. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate Poisson regression models and a zero-inflated Poisson regression model.SettingInternal medicine ward in a secondary care hospital in Southern Switzerland.ParticipantsThe first 100 consecutive patients admitted in an internal medicine ward.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMedication discrepancies between the medication list obtained by the physician and that obtained by a pharmacist according to a systematic approach (BPMH) were collected, quantified and assessed by an expert panel that assigned a severity score. The same procedure was applied to discrepancies regarding allergies. Predicting factors for medication discrepancies were identified.ResultsThe median of medications per patient was 8 after standard medication history and 11 after BPMH. Total admission discrepancies were 524 (5.24 discrepancies per patient) with at least 1 discrepancy per patient. For 47 patients, at least one discrepancy was classified as clinically relevant. Discrepancies were classified as significant and serious in 19% and 2% of cases, respectively. Furthermore, 67% of the discrepancies were detected during the interview conducted by the pharmacist with the patients and/or their caregivers. The number of drugs used and the autonomous management of home therapy were associated with an increased number of clinically relevant discrepancies in a multivariable Poisson regression model.ConclusionEven in an advanced healthcare system, a standardised MedRec process including a BPMH represents an important strategy that may contribute to avoid a notable number of clinically relevant discrepancies and potential adverse drug events.

Project description:ObjectivesChest CT has been widely used to screen and to evaluate the severity of COVID-19 disease in the early stages of infection without severe acute respiratory syndrome, but no prospective data are available to study the relationship between extent of lung damage and short-term mortality. The objective was to evaluate association between standardized simple visual lung damage CT score (vldCTs) at admission, which does not require any software, and 30-day mortality.MethodsIn a single-center prospective cohort of COVID-19 patients included during 4 weeks, the presence and extent of ground glass opacities(GGO), consolidation opacities, or both of them were visually assessed in each of the 5 lung lobes (score from 0 to 4 per lobe depending on the percentage and out of 20 per patient = vldCTs) after the first chest CT performed to detect COVID-19 pneumonia.ResultsAmong 210 confirmed COVID-19 patients, the number of survivors and non-survivors was 162 (77%) and 48 (23%), respectively at 30 days. vldCTs was significantly higher in non-survivors, and the AUC of vldCTs to distinguish survivors and non-survivors was 0.72 (95%CI 0.628-0.807, p < 0.001); the best cut-off vldCTs value was 7. During follow-up, significant differences in discharges and 30-day mortality were observed between patients with vldCTs ≥ 7 versus vldCTs < 7: (98 [85.2%] vs 49 [51.6%]; p < 0.001 and 36 [37.9%] vs 12 [12.4%]; p < 0.001, respectively. The 30-day mortality increased if vldCTs ≥ 7 (HR, 3.16 (1.50-6.43); p = 0.001), independent of age, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation levels, and comorbidities at admission.ConclusionsBy using chest CT in COVID-19 patients, extensive lung damage can be visually assessed with a score related to 30-day mortality independent of conventional risk factors of the disease.Key points• In non-selected COVID-19 patients included prospectively during 4 weeks, the extent of ground glass opacities(GGO) and consolidation opacities evaluated by a simple visual score was related to 30-day mortality independent of age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation levels, comorbidities, and hs-troponin I level at admission. • This severity score should be incorporated into risk stratification algorithms and in structured chest CT reports requiring a standardized reading by radiologists in case of COVID-19.