Cargando…

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 admiss...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stuijt, C. C. M., van den Bemt, B. J. F., Boerlage, V. E., Janssen, M. J. A., Taxis, K., Karapinar-Çarkit, F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9158255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35642033
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08118-8
Descripción
Sumario: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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08118-8.