Cargando…
Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study
PURPOSE: A medication list (ML) is a document listing the patient’s entire medication, instructions for use, and indications. In Germany, a national standard was established in 2016 by law. However, data on patients’ use of this standardized ML are scarce. We investigated (i) patients’ practical use...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37927342 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S427192 |
_version_ | 1785130875304804352 |
---|---|
author | Eickhoff, Christiane Müller, Uta Thomas, Sophie Schmidt, Christian Hartling, Lisa Sophie Michael, Sebastian Schulz, Martin Bertsche, Thilo |
author_facet | Eickhoff, Christiane Müller, Uta Thomas, Sophie Schmidt, Christian Hartling, Lisa Sophie Michael, Sebastian Schulz, Martin Bertsche, Thilo |
author_sort | Eickhoff, Christiane |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: A medication list (ML) is a document listing the patient’s entire medication, instructions for use, and indications. In Germany, a national standard was established in 2016 by law. However, data on patients’ use of this standardized ML are scarce. We investigated (i) patients’ practical use of the ML, (ii) patients’ understanding of the ML, (iii) completeness and correctness of the current ML version, and (iv) reasons why patients did not adhere to their ML. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Community pharmacists recruited patients possessing a standardized ML with ≥5 medications. Information sources to evaluate the ML were: (a) brown bag analysis, (b) practical demonstration, (c) patient interview, and (d) patient file. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-eight patients (median age: 76 years, range: 27–95) were enrolled. (i) 38.5% of the patients used their ML regularly to prepare their medication and 73.3% to inform their physician. (ii) Overall, patients’ understanding of the ML was good, with >80% of the patients being able to identify all relevant information. (iii) While n = 2779 medications were actually taken, n = 2539 were documented on the ML. No ML was fully correct and complete. Regarding particularly relevant items, ie, active ingredient, strength, dosage, medication missing or listed but not taken, 79.2% of ML were incorrect or incomplete. Handwritten modifications on the ML were frequent. (iv) Almost 60% of all patients did not follow their ML with “fear of adverse drug reactions” being the most frequently (n = 50) mentioned reason. CONCLUSION: Completeness and correctness of the current ML version was poor with handwritten modifications being frequent. Additionally, most of the patients did not adhere to their ML. This indicates that measures that lead to correct and up-to-date ML and improvements in patient counseling about their medication should be developed and implemented into routine practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10624198 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106241982023-11-04 Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study Eickhoff, Christiane Müller, Uta Thomas, Sophie Schmidt, Christian Hartling, Lisa Sophie Michael, Sebastian Schulz, Martin Bertsche, Thilo Patient Prefer Adherence Original Research PURPOSE: A medication list (ML) is a document listing the patient’s entire medication, instructions for use, and indications. In Germany, a national standard was established in 2016 by law. However, data on patients’ use of this standardized ML are scarce. We investigated (i) patients’ practical use of the ML, (ii) patients’ understanding of the ML, (iii) completeness and correctness of the current ML version, and (iv) reasons why patients did not adhere to their ML. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Community pharmacists recruited patients possessing a standardized ML with ≥5 medications. Information sources to evaluate the ML were: (a) brown bag analysis, (b) practical demonstration, (c) patient interview, and (d) patient file. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-eight patients (median age: 76 years, range: 27–95) were enrolled. (i) 38.5% of the patients used their ML regularly to prepare their medication and 73.3% to inform their physician. (ii) Overall, patients’ understanding of the ML was good, with >80% of the patients being able to identify all relevant information. (iii) While n = 2779 medications were actually taken, n = 2539 were documented on the ML. No ML was fully correct and complete. Regarding particularly relevant items, ie, active ingredient, strength, dosage, medication missing or listed but not taken, 79.2% of ML were incorrect or incomplete. Handwritten modifications on the ML were frequent. (iv) Almost 60% of all patients did not follow their ML with “fear of adverse drug reactions” being the most frequently (n = 50) mentioned reason. CONCLUSION: Completeness and correctness of the current ML version was poor with handwritten modifications being frequent. Additionally, most of the patients did not adhere to their ML. This indicates that measures that lead to correct and up-to-date ML and improvements in patient counseling about their medication should be developed and implemented into routine practice. Dove 2023-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10624198/ /pubmed/37927342 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S427192 Text en © 2023 Eickhoff et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Eickhoff, Christiane Müller, Uta Thomas, Sophie Schmidt, Christian Hartling, Lisa Sophie Michael, Sebastian Schulz, Martin Bertsche, Thilo Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title | Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title_full | Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title_fullStr | Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title_short | Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study |
title_sort | patients’ use of a standardized medication list - a mixed methods study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37927342 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S427192 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT eickhoffchristiane patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT mulleruta patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT thomassophie patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT schmidtchristian patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT hartlinglisasophie patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT michaelsebastian patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT schulzmartin patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy AT bertschethilo patientsuseofastandardizedmedicationlistamixedmethodsstudy |