An evaluation of the epidemiology of medication discrepancies and clinical significance of medicines reconciliation in children admitted to hospital.

AIMS: To determine the incidence of unintended medication discrepancies in paediatric patients at the time of hospital admission; evaluate the process of medicines reconciliation; assess the benefit of medicines reconciliation in preventing clinical harm. METHOD: A 5 month prospective multisite study. Pharmacists at four English hospitals conducted admission medicines reconciliation in children using a standardised data collection form. A discrepancy was defined as a difference between the patient's preadmission medication (PAM), compared with the initial admission medication orders written by the hospital doctor. The discrepancies were classified into intentional and unintentional discrepancies. The unintentional discrepancies were assessed for potential clinical harm by a team of healthcare professionals, which included doctors, pharmacists and nurses. RESULTS: Medicines reconciliation was conducted in 244 children admitted to hospital. 45% (109/244) of the children had at least one unintentional medication discrepancy between the PAM and admission medication order. The overall results indicated that 32% (78/244) of patients had at least one clinically significant unintentional medication discrepancy with potential to cause moderate 20% (50/244) or severe 11% (28/244) harm. No single source of information provided all the relevant details of a patient's medication history. Parents/carers provided the most accurate details of a patient's medication history in 81% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in the absence of medicines reconciliation, children admitted to hospitals across England are at risk of harm from unintended medication discrepancies at the transition of care from the community to hospital. No single source of information provided a reliable medication history.

Ultrasonography Versus Landmark for Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials report inconsistent findings when comparing the initial success rate of peripheral intravenous cannulation using landmark versus ultrasonography for patients with difficult venous access. We sought to determine which method is superior for patients with varying levels of intravenous access difficulty. METHODS: We conducted a 2-group, parallel, randomized, controlled trial and randomly allocated 1,189 adult emergency department (ED) patients to landmark or ultrasonography, stratified by difficulty of access and operator. ED technicians performed the peripheral intravenous cannulations. Before randomization, technicians classified subjects as difficult, moderately difficult, or easy access according to visible or palpable veins and perception of difficulty with a landmark approach. If the first attempt failed, we randomized subjects a second time. We compared the initial and second-attempt success rates by procedural approach and difficulty of intravenous access, using a generalized linear mixed regression model, adjusted for operator. RESULTS: The 33 participating technicians enrolled a median of 26 subjects (interquartile range 9 to 55). The initial success rate was 81% but varied significantly by technique and difficulty of access. The initial success rate by ultrasonography was higher than landmark for patients with difficult access (48.0 more successes per 100 tries; 95% confidence interval [CI] 35.6 to 60.3) or moderately difficult access (10. 2 more successes per 100 tries; 95% CI 1.7 to 18.7). Among patients with easy access, landmark yielded a higher success rate (10.6 more successes per 100 tries; 95% CI 5.8 to 15.4). The pattern of second-attempt success rates was similar. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonographic peripheral intravenous cannulation is advantageous among patients with difficult or moderately difficult intravenous access but is disadvantageous among patients anticipated to have easy access.

The cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-led treatment of cardiac risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease compared with the general population. Following attempts to change lifestyle, pharmacological treatment is necessary to modify this risk. However, the use of medicines may be sub-optimal because of infrequent or inadequate medication review. SETTING: Harrogate District Hospital, a medium-sized district general hospital in a rural area of North Yorkshire, England. METHOD: A pharmacist-led hospital clinic was established to manage diabetic patients suffering from resistant hypertension with or without hyperlipidaemia. Patients with two consecutive elevated blood pressure (BP) readings (>140/80 mmHg) were recruited via referral from out-patient clinics and diabetic nurse specialists. A range of clinical indicators were assessed on referral. The pharmacist prepared individualised patient information and a patient-held record card. An evidence-based algorithm was used to make adjustments (every 4 weeks) to anti-hypertensive medication. If necessary treatment of hyperlipidaemia was also optimised. Published data was used to predict the 10-year risk of coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular accident for each patient before and after intensive medicines management. Patients were discharged from the clinic after two consecutive target BP measurements. RESULTS: It is estimated that these risks were reduced by 11.9 and 9.6%, respectively, at a cost per event avoided of pound 34,708 and pound 63,320. CONCLUSION: Intensive pharmacist-led clinics are potentially a cost-effective way to improve the cardiovascular health of patients with type 2 diabetes.