Medication reconciliation: A qualitative analysis of clinicians' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation has been at the forefront of national patient safety efforts for nearly a decade, yet health care institutions remain challenged with implementation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article was to report an analysis of a qualitative study of the experiences of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists with medication management practices, specifically focusing on the practice of medication reconciliation. METHODS: This study used focus groups in a qualitative approach to explore participant perceptions about interprofessional communication and adverse drug events. Three focus groups were conducted at each of 3 Veterans Administration hospitals, 1 each for physicians (13), nurses (19), and pharmacists (16). The analysis for this article focused on specific discussions about medication reconciliation. RESULTS: Two primary thematic questions emerged from the discussion about medication reconciliation: What does medication reconciliation really mean? Who is actually responsible for the process? Participants from each profession had differing perspectives about the purpose and processes of medication reconciliation. Perceived responsibilities appeared to be influenced by their distinct views regarding the meaning and purpose of medication reconciliation. The pharmacist role emerged as a critical role to assure medication safety. CONCLUSIONS: Translating the intent of medication reconciliation into effective practice requires acknowledgment of the involved professionals' diverse perspectives on the independent, joint, and overlapping functions of medication management as well as recognizing the limitations of technology.

Psychotropic-related hip fractures: meta-analysis of first-generation and second-generation antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, more than 18,000 adults aged 65 or older died from injuries related to falls, with up to 30% experiencing severe injuries such as hip fracture or head trauma. The economic impact of falls and fractures among older people is substantial, with direct economic consequences totaling $19 billion in 2000. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between antipsychotic and antidepressant agents and the risk of hip fracture in older adults, across multiple studies. METHODS: An English-language PubMed/MEDLINE search for studies from January 1966 to January 2011 was conducted, using key words including aged, hip fracture, fractures, antidepressive agents, and antipsychotic agents, as well as individual drug names. Criteria for study inclusion were mean subject age greater than or equal to 65 years, adjusted for age and sex, hip fracture-specific results provided, data specific to a drug class, subclass, or single agents, and cohort or case-controlled study design. Two authors reviewed all studies for inclusion/exclusion. A random effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios. RESULTS: A total of 166 studies were identified in the initial search. Ten antipsychotic-related and 14 antidepressant-related studies, representing more than 70,000 hip fracture cases and approximately 270,000 subjects from 4 continents, met the inclusion criteria. Summary odds ratios (95% CI) were first-generation (conventional) antipsychotics 1.68 (1.43 to 1.99), second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics 1.30 (1.14 to 1.49), first-generation (tricyclic) antidepressants 1.71 (1.43 to 2.04), and second-generation (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and unique agents such as bupropion, mirtazapine, and trazodone) antidepressants 1.94 (1.37 to 2.76). Clear evidence of heterogeneity was noted among all antidepressant study analyses (I(2) > 87%; Q statistic p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All drug classes studied-first- and second-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants-were associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in predominantly older adult populations.

Pharmacist-managed telephone clinic review of antidementia medication effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and implementation of a telephone clinic for evaluating continued effectiveness of antidementia medication therapy in patients with dementia. SETTING: Ambulatory care at the Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: A pharmacist-directed, telephone dementia clinic review of patients taking dual antidementia therapy to determine whether a medication-discontinuation trial is appropriate based on caregiver global impressions. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Pharmacists review eligible patients' electronic medical records for adherence history and caregiver impressions of response to antidementia medications to determine if a discontinuation trial of antidementia medication is warranted. Pharmacists coordinate any discontinuation discussion with caregivers and medical providers and monitor patients' response to the resultant interventions via telephone. MAIN OUTCOMES: Pharmacist involvement allows for a structured method of monitoring adherence with antidementia medications and for determining whether they continue to provide benefit. RESULTS: Expected results include percentage of patients who underwent a medication-discontinuation trial, percentage of patients who did not demonstrate clinical decline after a discontinuation trial, and percentage of patients who subsequently restarted medication because of noticeable decline after the discontinuation trial. CONCLUSION: This telephone clinic capitalizes on the expertise of clinical pharmacists and helps establish a functional collaboration between health care providers, patients, and the electronic medical record to obtain a multiperspective evaluation of the effectiveness of antidementia therapy from a patient-centric view. This systematic approach improves patient-centered care and may have favorable impacts on antidementia medication cost utilization.

Agreement between pharmacists for problem identification: an initial quality measurement of cognitive services.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes in national reimbursement policies expand the ability of pharmacists to seek reimbursement for cognitive services. The quality of pharmacist-provided cognitive services has, until now, remained unassessed. Pharmacists should demonstrate the quality and value of their work to ensure the continued and expanded acceptance of reimbursement for their services. A preliminary step in assessing quality is to compare agreement between pharmacists for basic problem identification. OBJECTIVE: To quantify agreement between pharmacist reviewers for problem identification among Utah Medicaid recipients. METHODS: Five pharmacists retrospectively reviewed drug regimens, patient characteristics, diagnosis codes, and procedures for 80 Medicaid patients in September 2008 and identified drug-related problems (DRPs) in 15 predetermined categories. Data for each patient were reviewed twice, and each combination of 2 pharmacists reviewed the same 8 patients' information. We calculated a reliability coefficient to compare the number of DRPs identified and used prevalence and bias adjusted kappa (PABAK) to determine interrater reliability for the presence of a specific DRP. RESULTS: Of the 15 DRPs categorized by pharmacist reviewers, 1 (untreated indications) had a PABAK coefficient of 0.20, indicating a relatively low level of agreement between reviewers. All other DRP categories had good to excellent agreement, with PABAK coefficients ranging between 0.43 and 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist reviewers exhibited less variability in DRP identification or categorization than had been expected for most categories. This work supports the conclusion that pharmacists in our center provide a basic and necessary level of quality for problem assessment. Future work is needed to document the impact of this quality on patient outcomes.

Importance of cultural issues in managing a patient with diabetes.

Diabetes is highly prevalent in different ethnic groups. In the Hispanic population there are unique health care beliefs and practices that may affect diabetes care and management. It is important for pharmacists to understand these beliefs and other cultural issues in providing care to these persons with diabetes.

Prevalence of drug-related problems and cost-savings opportunities in medicaid high utilizers identified by a pharmacist-run drug regimen review center.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous reports of state Medicaid drug utilization review (DUR) programs, little data are available about the prevalence of drugrelated problems (DRPs) in Medicaid patients. A university-based, pharmacist-run DUR program for high utilizers was created as an alternative to imposition of a statutory limit of 7 medications per month in the Utah Medicaid program in 2002. The DUR program was designed to suggest ways that high-utilizing patients could decrease their total number of medications to 7 or fewer prior to imposition of the 7-medication limit at some time in the future. OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience in 1 Medicaid DUR program and to report the prevalence of DRPs and cost-saving opportunities (CSOs) among a population of Medicaid recipients who were high utilizers of prescription drugs. METHODS: DRPs were identified by 5 clinical pharmacists employed by the Drug Regimen Review Center (DRRC) in Salt Lake City. The purpose of the center was to provide drug therapy review services for a select number of Utah Medicaid recipients (200-300 per month) who exceeded a 7-medication limit during the calendar years 2003 and 2004. RESULTS: Out of 391,890 eligible Medicaid recipients, 242,411 (62%) received at least 1 medication, and 16,958 (4.3%) exceeded the 7-medication limit during the review period. Of those exceeding the limit, the DRRC reviewed a total of 3,706 (21.9%) patients, representing the highest utilizers by volume of medication. The prevalence of DRPs considered clinically important in the review cohort was 79.7% of patients, including therapeutic duplications in 54.6% of patients, dose form optimization in 29.7%, and inappropriate uncoordinated care in 25.3%. The average pharmacy cost per month for patients with at least 1 DRP was 1,081 dollars; by contrast, the average pharmacy cost per month for all other patients receiving at least 1 prescription was 91 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 4% of Medicaid recipients exceeded the 7-medication monthly limit. Among the 22% highest utilizers in this group, 48% of nursing home residents and 87% of ambulatory recipients had at least 1 DRP, or an overall rate of 80% of high-use Medicaid recipients or as much as 3.2% of the Medicaid population.