Dataset Information

An Integrated Model to Improve Medication Reconciliation in Oncology: Prospective Interventional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Accurate medication reconciliation reduces the risk of drug incompatibilities and adverse events that can occur during transitions in care. Community pharmacies (CPs) are a crucial part of the health care system and could be involved in collecting essential information on conventional and supplementary drugs used at home.

Objective

The aim of this paper was to establish an alliance between our cancer institute, Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST), and CPs, the latter entrusted with the completion of a pharmacological recognition survey. We also aimed to integrate the national information technology (IT) platform of CPs with the electronic medical records of IRST.

Methods

Cancer patients undergoing antiblastic treatments were invited to select a CP taking part in the study and to complete the pharmacological recognition step. The information collected by the pharmacist was sent to the electronic medical records of IRST through the new IT platform, after which the oncologist performed the reconciliation process.

Results

A total of 66 CPs completed surveys for 134 patients. An average of 5.9 drugs per patient was used at home, with 12 or more used in the most advanced age groups. Moreover, 60% (80/134) of the patients used nonconventional products or critical foods. Some potential interactions between nonconventional medications and cancer treatments were reported.

Conclusions

In the PROF-1 (Progetto di Rete in Oncologia con le Farmacie di comunità della Romagna) study, an alliance was created between our cancer center and CPs to improve medication reconciliation, and a new integrated IT platform was validated.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04796142; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04796142.

SUBMITTER: Passardi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8726040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication reconciliation reduces potential medication discrepancies and adverse drug events. The role of pharmacy technicians in obtaining best possible medication histories (BPMHs) and performing reconciliation at the admission and transfer interfaces of care for pediatric patients has not been described.ObjectivesTo compare the completeness and accuracy of BPMHs and reconciliation conducted by a pharmacy technician (pilot study) and by nurses and/or pharmacists (baseline). The severity of identified unintentional discrepancies was rated to determine their clinical importance.MethodsThis prospective cohort comparison study involved patients up to 18 years of age admitted to and/or transferred between the Cardiology ward and the Cardiac Critical Care Unit of a pediatric tertiary care teaching hospital. A pharmacy resident conducted two 3-week audits: the first to assess the completeness and accuracy of BPMHs and reconciliation performed by nurses and/or pharmacists and the second to assess the completeness and accuracy of BPMHs and reconciliation performed by a pharmacy technician.ResultsThe total number of patients was 38 in the baseline phase and 46 in the pilot period. There were no statistically significant differences between the baseline and pilot audits in terms of completion of BPMH (82% [28/34] versus 78% [21/27], p = 0.75) or completion of reconciliation (70% [23/33] versus 75% [15/20], p = 0.76) within 24 h of admission. Completeness of transfer reconciliation was significantly higher during the pilot study than at baseline (91% [31/34] versus 61% [11/18], p = 0.022). No significant differences between the baseline and pilot audits were found in the proportions of patients with at least one BPMH discrepancy (38% [13/34] versus 22% [6/27], p = 0.27), at least one unintentional discrepancy upon admission (21% [7/33] versus 10% [2/20], p = 0.46), or at least one unintentional discrepancy at the transfer interface (6% [1/18] versus 3% [1/34], p = 0.58). None of the 16 unintentional discrepancies were rated as causing severe patient discomfort or clinical deterioration.ConclusionsA trained pharmacy technician can perform admission and transfer medication reconciliation for pediatric patients with completeness and accuracy comparable to those of nurses and pharmacists. Future studies should explore the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of this practice model.

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:BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is an important patient safety initiative that aims to prevent patient harm from medication errors. Yet, the implementation and sustainability of MedRec interventions have been challenging due to contextual barriers like the lack of interprofessional communication (among pharmacists, nurses, and providers) and limited organizational capacity. How to best implement MedRec interventions remains unclear. Guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, we report the differing strategies hospital implementation teams used to implement an evidence-based MedRec Toolkit (the MARQUIS Toolkit).MethodsA qualitative study was conducted with implementation teams and executive leaders of hospitals participating in the federally funded "Implementation of a Medication Reconciliation Toolkit to Improve Patient Safety" (known as MARQUIS2) research study. Data consisted of transcripts from web-based focus groups and individual interviews, as well as meeting minutes. Interview data were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison technique.ResultsData were collected from 16 hospitals using 2 focus groups, 3 group interviews, and 11 individual interviews, 10 sites' meeting minutes, and an email interview of an executive. Major categories of implementation strategies predominantly mirrored the ERIC strategies of "Plan," "Educate," "Restructure," and "Quality Management." Participants rarely used the ERIC strategies of finance and attending to policy context. Two new non-ERIC categories of strategies emerged-"Integration" and "Professional roles and responsibilities." Of the 73 specific strategies in the ERIC taxonomy, 32 were used to implement the MARQUIS Toolkit and 11 new, and non-ERIC strategies were identified (e.g., aligning with existing initiatives and professional roles and responsibilities).ConclusionsComplex interventions like the MARQUIS MedRec Toolkit can benefit from the ERIC taxonomy, but adaptations and new strategies (and even categories) are necessary to fully capture the range of approaches to implementation.

Project description:Unresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation.Six U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a "gold standard" medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders.At baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01337063.

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.