Differences in medication reconciliation interventions between six hospitals: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Although medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently. OBJECTIVE: Quantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: On 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. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals 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.

Effect of medication reconciliation on patient reported potential adverse events after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Although medication reconciliation (MedRec) is effective in decreasing medication discrepancies, the effectiveness on Adverse Events (AEs) is very scarce. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of MedRec by a pharmacy team on patient-reported, potential AEs post-discharge. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective intervention study with before-after design at two Dutch hospitals. Participants were patients aged ≥18 years admitted for more than 48 h using three or more prescription medications upon discharge. Patients in the control group received usual care. In the intervention period, a trained team of pharmacy staff executed medication reconciliation consisting of patient education upon admission and discharge, review of prescribed medication to identify errors, and information transfer to primary care. To address the primary outcome, the difference in proportion of patients with one or more potential AEs was measured by a structured telephone interview, two weeks after discharge between usual care and intervention group. To address the second outcome, the difference in median number of potential AEs per patient was calculated. Other outcomes assessed included the association between the intervention and patient characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 221 (138 usual care and 83 intervention) patients were included. The proportion of control and intervention patients with AEs was 88.4% and 86.7% respectively (p > 0.05). The median number of potential AEs per patient was lower in the intervention group compared with usual care (1.1 vs. 2.1, p < 0.0001). Being in the intervention arm was associated with less potential AEs (RR 0.5, 95% CI [0.4-0.6]), whereas being previously admitted was associated with a higher number of potential AEs (RR 1.3, 95% CI [1.1-1.5]). The effect of the intervention on the number of potential AE was stronger among women compared with men (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Although the intervention did not decrease the proportion of patients with AEs, a significant reduction in the median number of potential AEs after hospital discharge between the intervention and usual care group was observed.