Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to 'cocoon'/'shield' and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient's/carer's perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.

Unintended discontinuation of medication following hospitalisation: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Whether unintended discontinuation of common, evidence-based, long-term medication occurs after hospitalisation; what factors are associated with unintended discontinuation; and whether the presence of documentation of medication at hospital discharge is associated with continuity of medication in general practice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study between 2012 and 2015. SETTING: Electronic records and hospital supplied discharge notifications in 44 Irish general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 20 488 patients aged 65 years or more prescribed long-term medication for chronic conditions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Discontinuity of four evidence-based medication drug classes: antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, thyroid replacement drugs and respiratory inhalers in hospitalised versus non-hospitalised patients; patient and health system factors associated with discontinuity; impact of the presence of medication in the hospital discharge summary on continuity of medication in a patient's general practitioner (GP) prescribing record at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: In patients admitted to hospital, medication discontinuity ranged from 6%-11% in the 6 months posthospitalisation. Discontinuity of medication is significantly lower for hospitalised patients taking respiratory inhalers (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.63, 95% CI (0.49 to 0.80), p<0.001) and thyroid medications (AOR 0.62, 95% CI (0.40 to 0.96), p=0.03). There is no association between discontinuity of medication and hospitalisation for antithrombotics (AOR 0.95, 95% CI (0.81 to 1.11), p=0.49) or lipid lowering medications (AOR 0.92, 95% CI (0.78 to 1.08), p=0.29). Older patients and those who paid to see their GP were more likely to experience increased odds of discontinuity in all four medicine groups. Less than half (39% to 47.4%) of patients had medication listed on their hospital discharge summary. Presence of medication on hospital discharge summary is significantly associated with continuity of medication in the GP prescribing record for lipid lowering medications (AOR 1.64, 95% CI (1.15 to 2.36), p=0.01) and respiratory inhalers (AOR 2.97, 95% CI (1.68 to 5.25), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Discontinuity of evidence-based long-term medication is common. Increasing age and private medical care are independently associated with a higher risk of medication discontinuity. Hospitalisation is not associated with discontinuity but less than half of hospitalised patients have medication recorded on their hospital discharge summary.

Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care.

BACKGROUND: Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.

Impact of team-versus ward-aligned clinical pharmacy on unintentional medication discrepancies at admission.

Background Medication reconciliation at admission to hospital reduces the prevalence of medication errors. Strategies are needed to ensure timely and efficient delivery of this service. Objective To investigate the effect of aligning clinical pharmacy services with consultant teams, by pharmacists attending post-admission ward rounds, in comparison to a ward-based service, on prevalence of unintentional unresolved discrepancies 48 h into admission. Setting A 243-bed public university teaching hospital in Ireland. Method A prospective, uncontrolled before-after observational study. A gold standard preadmission medication list was completed for each patient and compared with the patient's admission medication prescription and discrepancies were noted. Unresolved discrepancies were examined at 48 h after admission to determine if they were intentional or unintentional. Main outcome measured Number of patients with one or more unintentional, unresolved discrepancy 48 h into admission. Results Data were collected for 140 patients, of whom 73.5% were over 65 years of age. There were no differences between before (ward-aligned) and after (team-aligned) groups regarding age, number of medications or comorbidities. There was a statistically significant reduction in the prevalence of unintentional, unresolved discrepancy(s) per patient (67.3 vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001) and per medication (13.7 vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001) between the groups, favouring the team-based service. The effect remained statistically significant having adjusted for patient age, number of medications and comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 2.3-10.6). Conclusion A consultant team-based clinical pharmacy service contributed positively to medication reconciliation at admission, reducing the prevalence of unintentional, unresolved discrepancy(s) present 48 h after admission.

Collaborative pharmaceutical care in an Irish hospital: uncontrolled before-after study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the benefits of the Collaborative Pharmaceutical Care in Tallaght Hospital (PACT) service versus standard ward-based clinical pharmacy in adult inpatients receiving acute medical care, particularly on prevalence of medication error and quality of prescribing. METHODS: Uncontrolled before-after study, undertaken in consecutive adult medical inpatients admitted and discharged alive, using at least three medications. Standard care involved clinical pharmacists being ward-based, contributing to medication history taking and prescription review, but not involved at discharge. The innovative PACT intervention involved clinical pharmacists being team-based, leading admission and discharge medication reconciliation and undertaking prescription review. Primary outcome measures were prevalence per patient of medication error and potentially severe error. Secondary measures included quality of prescribing using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) in patients aged ≥65 years. FINDINGS: Some 233 patients (112 PACT, 121 standard) were included. PACT decreased the prevalence of any medication error at discharge (adjusted OR 0.07 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15)); number needed to treat (NNT) 3 (95% CI 2 to 3) and no PACT patient experienced a potentially severe error (NNT 20, 95% CI 10 to 142). In patients aged ≥65 years (n=108), PACT improved the MAI score from preadmission to discharge (Mann-Whitney U p<0.05; PACT median -1, IQR -3.75 to 0; standard care median +1, IQR -1 to +6). CONCLUSIONS: PACT, a collaborative model of pharmaceutical care involving medication reconciliation and review, delivered by clinical pharmacists and physicians, at admission, during inpatient care and at discharge was protective against potentially severe medication errors in acute medical patients and improved the quality of prescribing in older patients.

Medication details documented on hospital discharge: cross-sectional observational study of factors associated with medication non-reconciliation.

AIMS: Movement into or out of hospital is a vulnerable period for medication safety. Reconciling the medication a patient is using before admission with the medication prescribed on discharge, and documenting any changes (medication reconciliation) is recommended to improve safety. The aims of the study were to investigate the factors contributing to medication reconciliation on discharge, and identify the prevalence of non-reconciliation. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional, observational survey using consecutive discharges from purposively selected services in two acute public hospitals in Ireland. Medication reconciliation, potential for harm and unplanned re-admission were investigated. RESULTS: Medication non-reconciliation was identified in 50% of 1245 inpatient episodes, involving 16% of 9569 medications. The majority of non-reconciled episodes had potential to result in moderate (63%) or severe (2%) harm. Handwritten rather than computerized discharges (adjusted odds ratio (adjusted OR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.11, 2.99), increasing number of medications (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21, 1.31) or chronic illness (adjusted OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.33, 3.24) were associated with non-reconciliation. Omission of endocrine, central nervous system and nutrition and blood drugs was more likely on discharge, whilst omission on admission and throughout inpatient care, without documentation, was more likely for obstetric, gynaecology and urinary tract (OGU) or respiratory drugs. Documentation in the discharge communication that medication was intentionally stopped during inpatient care was less likely for cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and OGU drugs. Errors involving the dose were most likely for respiratory drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings inform strategies to facilitate medication reconciliation on discharge from acute hospital care.