Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Review of the utility of routine mortality reviews among deaths on General Internal Medicine wards in a Canadian tertiary care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Hospital morbidity and mortality reviews are common quality assurance activities, intended to uncover latent or unrecognised systemic issues that contribute to preventable adverse events and patient harm. Mortality reviews may be routinely mandated by hospital policy or for accreditation purposes. However, patients under the care of certain specialties, such as general internal medicine (GIM), are affected by a substantial burden of chronic disease, advanced age, frailty or limited life expectancy. Many of their deaths could be viewed as reasonably foreseeable, and unrelated to poor-quality care. METHODS: We sought to determine how frequently postmortem chart reviews for hospitalised GIM patients at our tertiary care centre in Canada would uncover patient safety or quality of care issues that directly led to these patients' deaths. We reviewed the charts of all patients who died while admitted to the GIM admitting service over a 12-month time period between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021. RESULTS: We found that in only 2% of cases was a clinical adverse event detected that directly contributed to a poor or unexpected outcome for the patient, and of those cases, more than half were related to unfortunate nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: Due to an overall low yield, we discourage routine mortality chart reviews for general medical patients, and instead suggest that organisations focus on strategies to recognise and capture safety incidents that may not necessarily result in death.