Dataset Information

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation proved an effective strategy to decrease the risk of medication discrepancy-related errors. However, it is still under pilot in China and its effectiveness in the Chinese healthcare system remains unclear. This study aims to conduct a pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation intervention for elderly patients in county hospitals in China and to evaluate its effect.

Methods and analysis

This is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, assessor-blinded, cluster, non-randomised, controlled study for elderly patients. The study will be conducted in seven county hospitals, and the clusters will be hospital wards. In each hospital, two internal medicine wards will be randomly allocated into either intervention group or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation, and those in the control group will receive standard care. The primary outcome is the incidence of medication discrepancy, and the secondary outcomes are patients' medication adherence, healthcare utilisation and medical costs within 30 days after discharge.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics committee approval of this study was obtained from Peking University Institution Review Board (IRB00001052-21016). We have also obtained ethical approvals from all the participating centres. The findings will be published in scientific and conference presentations.

Trail registration number

ChiCTR2100045668.

SUBMITTER: Yu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8919460 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study.

Yu Aichen A Wei Guilin G Chen Fanghui F Wang Zining Z Fu Mengyuan M Wang Guoying G Wushouer Haishaerjiang H Li Xixi X Guan Xiaodong X Shi Luwen L

BMJ open 20220311 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation proved an effective strategy to decrease the risk of medication discrepancy-related errors. However, it is still under pilot in China and its effectiveness in the Chinese healthcare system remains unclear. This study aims to conduct a pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation intervention for elderly patients in county hospitals in China and to evaluate its effect.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This is a multicentre, pr ...[more]

PMID: 35277404

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is an important patient safety strategy and is widespread in US hospitals and globally. Nevertheless, high quality MedRec has been difficult to implement. As part of a larger study investigating MedRec interventions, we evaluated and compared organisational contextual factors and team cohesion by hospital characteristics and implementation team members' profession to better understand the environmental context and its correlates during a multi-site quality improvement (QI) initiative. DESIGN:We conducted a cross-sectional observational study using a web survey (contextual factors) and a national hospital database (hospital characteristics). SETTING:Hospitals participating in the second Multi-Centre Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS2). PARTICIPANTS:Implementation team members of 18 participating MARQUIS2 hospitals. OUTCOMES:Primary outcome: contextual factor ratings (ie, organisational capacity, leadership support, goal alignment, staff involvement, patient safety climate and team cohesion). Secondary outcome: differences in contextual factors by hospital characteristics. RESULTS:Fifty-five team members from the 18 participating hospitals completed the survey. Ratings of contextual factors differed significantly by domain (p<0.001), with organisational capacity scoring the lowest (mean=4.0 out of 7.0) and perceived team cohesion and goal alignment scoring the highest (mean~6.0 out of 7.0). No statistically significant differences were observed in contextual factors by hospital characteristics (p>0.05). Respondents in the pharmacy profession gave lower ratings of leadership support than did those in the nursing or other professions group (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Hospital size, type and location did not drive differences in contextual factors, suggesting that tailoring MedRec QI implementation to hospital characteristics may not be necessary. Strong team cohesion suggests the use of interdisciplinary teams does not detract from cohesion when conducting mentored QI projects. Organisational leaders should particularly focus on supporting pharmacy services and addressing their concerns during MedRec QI initiatives. Future research should correlate contextual factors with implementation success to inform how best to prepare sites to implement complex QI interventions such as MedRec.

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:IntroductionMedication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.AimTo examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.MethodsA literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).ConclusionThere is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveChronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with a high economic burden, which is exacerbated by the high susceptibility to drug-related problems (DRPs) in this patient population. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of medication reconciliation supplemented with medication review for inpatients with CKD, compared with the absence of this intervention.DesignThis was a cost-benefit analysis conducted along with a prospective interventional study.SettingThe study was conducted at two hospitals in Jordan between February and May 2023.ParticipantsThe prospective interventional study included 142 admitted patients with CKD.InterventionsPatients received medication reconciliation at admission and discharge as well as medication review throughout admission.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were the net benefit and the benefit-to-cost ratio of the intervention. A cost-benefit analysis was conducted from the healthcare system perspective by assessing the cost of the service (the pharmacist time required to complete the service per patient) and the economic benefit, including total and per-patient cost savings and cost avoidance.ResultsThe total estimated cost of all DRPs in the absence of interventions (cost avoidance) was $83 052 (average of $585±308 per patient); among which $20 623 was attributed to medication discrepancies. The cost savings were estimated at -$467. The supplemented medication reconciliation service was estimated to cost $714. As a result, the estimated net benefit totalled $81 871, averaging $577 per patient, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 115.7:1 over the 4-month study period.ConclusionsDelivering a supplemented medication reconciliation service by a clinical pharmacist for patients with CKD is cost beneficial from the healthcare perspective in Jordan, an example of a low- and middle-income country. This finding further confirms the pivotal role of clinical pharmacists in multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

Dataset Information

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trail registration number

Publications

Study protocol for the evaluation of pharmacist-participated medication reconciliation at county hospitals in China: a multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, non-randomised, controlled study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets