A mixed methods evaluation of medication reconciliation in the primary care setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To understand the extent to which behaviors consistent with high quality medication reconciliation occurred in primary care settings and explore barriers to high quality medication reconciliation.Design
Fully mixed sequential equal status design including ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews, and surveys.Setting
Primary care practices within an integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States.Participants
We conducted 170 observations of patient encounters across 15 primary care clinics, 48 semi-structured interviews with staff, and 10 semi-structured interviews with patients. We also sent out surveys to 2,541 eligible staff with 616 responses (24% response rate) and to 5,132 eligible patients with 577 responses (11% response rate).Results
Inconsistency emerged as a major barrier to effective medication reconciliation. This inconsistency was present across a variety of factors such as the lack of standardized workflows for conducting medication reconciliation, a lack of knowledge about medication and the process of medication reconciliation, varying levels of importance ascribed to medication reconciliation, and inadequate integration of medication reconciliation into clinical workflows. Findings were generally consistent across all data collection methods.Conclusion
We have identified several barriers which impact the process of medication reconciliation in primary care settings. Our key finding is that the process of medication reconciliation is plagued by inconsistencies which contribute to inaccurate medication lists. These inconsistencies can be broken down into several categories (standardization, knowledge, importance, and inadequate integration) which can be targets for future studies and interventions.
SUBMITTER: Gionfriddo MR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8638945 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite routine review of medication lists during patient encounters, patients' medication lists are often incomplete and not reflective of actual medication use. Contributing to this situation is the challenge of reconciling medication information from existing health records, along with external locations (eg, pharmacies, other provider/hospital records, and care facilities) and patient-reported use. Advances in the interoperability and digital collection of information provides a foundation for integration of these once disparate information sources.ObjectiveWe aim to evaluate the effectiveness of and satisfaction with an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated web-based medication reconciliation application, MedTrue (MT).MethodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of MT in 6 primary care clinics within an integrated health care delivery system. Our primary outcome was medication list accuracy, as determined by a pharmacist-collected best-possible medication history (BPMH). Patient and staff perspectives were evaluated through surveys and semistructured interviews.ResultsOverall, 224 patients were recruited and underwent a BPMH with the pharmacist (n=118 [52.7%] usual care [UC], n=106 [47.3%] MT). For our primary outcome of medication list accuracy, 8 (7.5%) patients in the MT arm and 9 (7.6%) in the UC arm had 0 discrepancies (odds ratio=1.01, 95% CI 0.38-2.72, P=.98). The most common discrepancy identified was patients reporting no longer taking a medication (UC mean 2.48 vs MT mean 2.58, P=.21). Patients found MT easy to use and on average would highly recommend MT (average net promoter score=8/10). Staff found MT beneficial but difficult to implement.ConclusionsThe use of a web-based application integrated into the EHR which combines EHR, patient-reported data, and pharmacy-dispensed data did not improve medication list accuracy among a population of primary care patients compared to UC but was well received by patients. Future studies should address the limitations of the current application and assess whether improved implementation strategies would impact the effectiveness of the application.
| S-EPMC8941436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMany maternal deaths occur beyond the acute birth encounter. There are opportunities for improving maternal health outcomes through facilitated quality improvement efforts in community settings, particularly in the postpartum period. We used a mixed methods approach to evaluate a collaborative quality improvement (QI) model in 6 Chicago Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that implemented workflows optimizing care continuity in the extended postpartum period for high-risk prenatal patients.MethodsThe Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative focused on the implementation of a registry of high-risk prenatal patients to link them to primary care and was implemented in 2021; study data were collected in 2021-2022. We conducted a quantitative evaluation of FQHC-reported aggregate structure, process, and outcomes data at baseline (2020) and monthly (2021). Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews of participating FQHC staff focused on the experience of participating in the collaborative.ResultsAt baseline, none of the 6 participating FQHCs had integrated workflows connecting high-risk prenatal patients to primary care; by the end of implementation of the QI intervention, such workflows had been implemented at 19 sites across all 6 FQHCs, and 54 staff were trained in using these workflows. The share of high-risk patients transitioned to primary care within 6 months of delivery significantly increased from 25% at baseline to 72% by the end of implementation. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 11 key informants revealed buy-in, intervention flexibility, and collaboration as facilitators of successful engagement, and staffing and data infrastructure as participation barriers.ConclusionsOur findings show that a flexible and collaborative QI approach in the FQHC setting can help optimize care delivery. Future evaluations should incorporate the patient experience and patient-level data for comprehensive analysis.
| S-EPMC11233081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Medication adherence can prevent health risks, but many patients do not adhere to their prescribed treatment. Our recent trial found that a digital intervention was effective at improving medication adherence in non-adherent patients with Hypertension or Type 2 Diabetes; but we do not know how it brought about behavioural changes. This research is a post-trial process evaluation of the mechanism by which the intervention achieved its intended effects. Methods: A mixed methods design with quantitative and qualitative evidence synthesis was employed. Data was generated by two studies. Study 1 used questionnaires to measure the underlying mechanisms of and the medication adherence behaviour, and digital logfiles to objectively capture intervention effects on the process of behaviour change. Multilevel regression analysis on 57 complete intervention group cases tested the effects of the intervention at modifying the mechanism of behaviour change and in turn at improving medication adherence. Study 2 used in depth interviews with a subsample of 20 intervention patients, and eight practise nurses. Thematic analysis provided evidence about the overarching intervention functions and recommendations to improve intervention reach and impact in primary care. Results: Study 1 found that intervention effectiveness was significantly associated with positive changes in the underlying mechanisms of behaviour change (R 2 = 0.26, SE = 0.98, P = 0.00); and this effect was heightened twofold when the tailored intervention content and reporting on medication taking (R 2 = 0.59, SE = 0.74, P = 0.00) was interested into the regression model. Study 2 suggested that the intervention supported motivation and ability to adherence, although clinically meaningful effects would require very brief medication adherence risk appraisal and signposting to ongoing digitally delivered behavioural support during clinical consultations. Conclusion: This post trial process evaluation used objective methods to capture the intervention effect on the mechanisms of behaviour change to explain intervention effectiveness, and subjective accounts to explore the circumstances under which these effects were achieved. The results of this process evaluation will inform a large scale randomised controlled trial in primary care.
| S-EPMC8720771 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6513651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedication errors during hospitalization are a major patient safety concern. Medication reconciliation is an effective tool to reduce medication errors, yet internal medicine residents rarely receive formal education on the process.ObjectiveWe assessed if an educational intervention on quality improvement principles and effective medication reconciliation for internal medicine residents will lead to fewer medication discrepancies and more accurate discharge medication lists.MethodsFrom July 2012 to May 2013, internal medicine residents from 3 academic institutions who were rotating at the Washington DC VA Medical Center received twice-monthly interactive educational sessions on medication reconciliation, using both institutional summary metrics and data from their own discharges. Sessions were led by a faculty member or chief resident. Accuracy of discharge instructions for residents in the intervention group was compared to the accuracy of discharge data from June 2012 for a group of residents who did not receive the intervention. We used χ(2) analysis to assess for differences.ResultsThe number of duplicate medications (23% versus 12%, P = .01); extraneous medications (14% versus 6%, P = .014); medications sorted by disease or indication (25% versus 77%, P < .001); and the number of discrepancies in discharge summaries (34% versus 11%, P < .001) statistically improved. No difference in the number of omissions was found between the 2 groups (17% versus 15%, P = .62).ConclusionsAn educational intervention targeting internal medicine residents can be implemented with reasonable staff and time costs, and is effective in reducing the number of medication discrepancies at discharge.
| S-EPMC4597952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently.ObjectiveQuantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences.MethodsThis explanatory retrospective mixed-method study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. Patients from six hospitals and six different wards i.e. orthopaedics, surgery, pulmonary diseases, internal medicine, cardiology and gastroenterology were included. At these wards, MedRec was implemented both on hospital admission and discharge. The number of pharmacy interventions was collected and classified in two subcategories. First, the number of interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies (elimination of differences between listed medication and the patient's actual medication use). And second, the number of medication optimizations (optimization of pharmacotherapy e.g. eliminating double medication). Based on these quantitative results and interviews, a focus group was performed to give insight in local MedRec processes to address differences in context between hospitals. Descriptive analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative) was used.ResultsOn admission 765 (85%) patients from six hospitals, received MedRec by trained nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmaceutical consultants or pharmacists. Of those, 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD ± 2.4)) had at least one discrepancy. Upon discharge, these numbers were among 632 (70%) of patients, 5-28% (mean per patient 0.7 (SD 1.2)). Optimizations in pharmacotherapy were implemented for 2% (0.4-3.7 interventions per patient upon admission) to 95% (0.1-1.7 interventions per patient upon discharge) of patients. The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, the type of healthcare professionals involved, where and when patient interviews for MedRec were performed and finally, embedding and extent of medication optimization.ConclusionsHospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. Differences in execution of MedRec and local context determines the number of interventions. This study can support hospitals who want to optimize MedRec processes.
| S-EPMC9158255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectiveMedication reconciliation at transitions of care decreases medication errors, hospitalizations, and adverse drug events. We compared inpatient medication histories and reconciliation across disciplines and evaluated the nature of discrepancies.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of patients admitted from the emergency department at our 760-bed hospital. Eligible patients had their medication histories conducted and reconciled in order by the admitting nurse (RN), certified pharmacy technician (CPhT), and pharmacist (RPh). Discharge medication reconciliation was not altered. Admission and discharge discrepancies were categorized by discipline, error type, and drug class and were assigned a criticality index score. A discrepancy rating system systematically measured discrepancies.ResultsOf 175 consented patients, 153 were evaluated. Total admission and discharge discrepancies were 1,461 and 369, respectively. The average number of medications per participant at admission was 8.59 (1,314) with 9.41 (1,374) at discharge. Most discrepancies were committed by RNs: 53.2% (777) at admission and 56.1% (207) at discharge. The majority were omitted or incorrect. RNs had significantly higher admission discrepancy rates per medication (0.59) compared with CPhTs (0.36) and RPhs (0.16) (P < .001). RPhs corrected significantly more discrepancies per participant than RNs (6.39 vs 0.48; P < .001); average criticality index reduction was 79.0%. Estimated prevented adverse drug events (pADEs) cost savings were $589,744.ConclusionsRPhs committed the fewest discrepancies compared with RNs and CPhTs, resulting in more accurate medication histories and reconciliation. RPh involvement also prevented the greatest number of medication errors, contributing to considerable pADE-related cost savings.
| S-EPMC4252186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelivery of comprehensive care for persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in rural and low prevalence settings presents many challenges. We developed and evaluated a telehealth collaborative care (TCC) program for persons with HIV in a rural area.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of TCC, and identify factors influencing implementation in rural settings.DesignMixed methods evaluation of a quality improvement program with pre-measures and post-measures.PatientsVeterans with HIV infection in Iowa and Illinois.InterventionTCC integrated HIV specialty care delivered by clinical video telehealth, with primary care delivered by generalist providers, in seven Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) serving rural areas. Principles guiding TCC design were: 1) clear delineation of specialty and primary care clinic roles in co-managed care; 2) creation of processes to improve care coordination between specialty and primary care teams; and 3) use of a patient registry for population management across sites.MeasuresVeterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system performance measures for care for HIV infection and common comorbidities, patient travel time to obtain care, and patient satisfaction. Qualitative evaluation involved semi-structured telephone interviews with patients.Key resultsThirty of 32 eligible patients chose TCC over traveling to the HIV clinic for all care. Among 24 patients in TCC during the June 2011-May 2012 evaluation period, median age was 54 (range, 40-79), most (96 %) were men, and median CD4 count was 707 cells/cm(3) (range, 233-1307). VA performance measures were met for > 90 % of TCC patients. Median yearly travel time decreased from 320 min per patient prior to TCC to 170 min during TCC (p?<?0.001). Interview themes included: 1) overcoming privacy concerns during care in local primary care clinics; 2) tradeoffs between access, continuity, and care coordination; and 3) the role of specialist involvement in collaborative care.DiscussionTelehealth Collaborative Care is a feasible approach to providing accessible and comprehensive care for persons with HIV in rural settings.
| S-EPMC3744312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMedication non-initiation, or primary non-adherence, is a persistent public health problem that increases the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. The initial medication adherence (IMA) intervention is a complex multidisciplinary intervention to improve adherence to cardiovascular and diabetes treatments in primary care by empowering the patient and promoting informed prescriptions based on shared decision-making. This paper presents the development and implementation strategy of the IMA intervention and the process evaluation protocol embedded in a cluster randomised controlled trial (the IMA-cRCT) to understand and interpret the outcomes of the trial and comprehend the extent of implementation and fidelity, the active mechanisms of the IMA intervention and in what context the intervention is implemented and works.Methods and analysisWe present the protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation including quantitative and qualitative methods to measure implementation and fidelity and to explore the active mechanisms and the interactions between the intervention, participants and its context. The process evaluation will be conducted in primary care centres and community pharmacies from the IMA-cRCT, and participants include healthcare professionals (general practitioners, nurses and community pharmacists) as well as patients. Quantitative data collection methods include data extraction from the intervention operative records, patient clinical records and participant feedback questionnaires, whereas qualitative data collection involves semistructured interviews, focus groups and field diaries. Quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed separately and triangulated to produce deeper insights and robust results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Research Ethics Comittee (CEIm) at IDIAP Jordi Gol (codeCEIm 21/051 P). Findings will be disseminated through publications and conferences, as well as presentations to healthcare professionals and stakeholders from healthcare organisations.Trial registration numberNCT05026775.
| S-EPMC9628671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedication nonadherence is a global public health challenge that results in suboptimal health outcomes and increases health care costs. Forgetting to take medicines is one of the most common reasons for unintentional medication nonadherence. Research findings indicate that voice-activated virtual home assistants, such as Amazon Echo and Google Home devices, may be useful in promoting medication adherence.ObjectiveThis study aims to create a medication adherence app (skill), MedBuddy, for Amazon Echo devices and measure the use, usability, and usefulness of this medication-taking reminder skill.MethodsA single-group, mixed methods, cohort feasibility study was conducted with women who took oral contraceptives (N=25). Participants were undergraduate students (age: mean 21.8 years, SD 6.2) at an urban university in the Southeast United States. Participants were given an Amazon Echo Dot with MedBuddy-a new medication reminder skill for Echo devices created by our team-attached to their study account, which they used for 60 days. Participants self-reported their baseline and poststudy medication adherence. MedBuddy use was objectively evaluated by tracking participants' interactions with MedBuddy through Amazon Alexa. The usability and usefulness of MedBuddy were evaluated through a poststudy interview in which participants responded to both quantitative and qualitative questions.ResultsParticipants' interactions with MedBuddy, as tracked through Amazon Alexa, only occurred on half of the study days (mean 50.97, SD 29.5). At study end, participants reported missing their medication less in the past 1 and 6 months compared with baseline (χ21=0.9 and χ21=0.4, respectively; McNemar test: P<.001 for both). However, there was no significant difference in participants' reported adherence to consistently taking medication within the same 2-hour time frame every day in the past 1 or 6 months at the end of the study compared with baseline (χ21=3.5 and χ21=0.4, respectively; McNemar test: P=.63 and P=.07, respectively). Overall feedback about usability was positive, and participants provided constructive feedback about the skill's features that could be improved. Participants' evaluation of MedBuddy's usefulness was overwhelmingly positive-most (15/23, 65%) said that they would continue using MedBuddy as a medication reminder if provided with the opportunity and that they would recommend it to others. MedBuddy features that participants enjoyed were an external prompt separate from their phone, the ability to hear the reminder prompt from a separate room, multiple reminders, and verbal responses to prompts.ConclusionsThe findings of this feasibility study indicate that the MedBuddy medication reminder skill may be useful in promoting medication adherence. However, the skill could benefit from further usability enhancements.
| S-EPMC8317037 | biostudies-literature