Objective: The objective of this study was to develop interventions to reduce percentage of patients with one or more medication errors during discharge.
Methods: A pharmacist-led quality improvement (QI) program over 6 months was conducted in medical wards at a tertiary public hospital. Percentage of patients discharge with one or more medication errors was reviewed in the pre-intervention and four main improvements were developed: increase the ratio of pharmacist to patient, prioritize discharge prescription order within office hours, complete discharge medication reconciliation by ward pharmacist, set up a Centralized Discharge Medication Pre-packing Unit. Percentage of patients with one or more medication errors in both pre- and post-intervention phase were monitored using process control chart.
Results: With the implementation of the QI program, the percentage of patients with one or more medication errors during discharge that were corrected by pharmacists significantly increased from 77.6% to 95.9% (p<0.001). Percentage of patients with one or more clinically significant error was similar in both pre and post-QI with an average of 24.8%.
Conclusions: Increasing ratio of pharmacist to patient to complete discharge medication reconciliation during discharge significantly recorded a reduction in the percentage of patients with one or more medication errors.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify the prevalence and nature of pre-admission inappropriate prescribing by using the STOPP (screening tool of older people's prescriptions) criteria amongst a sample of hospitalised elderly inpatients in South Australia.
SETTING: Medical, surgical and rehabilitation wards of a public teaching hospital in Adelaide, South Australia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pre-admission prevalence of PIM.
METHOD: Medication management plans of 100 patients of ≥65 years old were prospectively studied to determine the prevalence of pre-admission PIM use. Sixty-five criteria of STOPP were applied to identify PIMs.
RESULTS: The total number of pre-admission medications screened during the study period was 949; the median number of medicines per patient was nine (range 2-28). Overall the STOPP criteria identified 138 PIMs in 60 % of patients. The most frequently encountered PIM was opiates prescribed in patients with recurrent falls (12.3 %), followed by benzodiazepines in fallers (10.1 %) and proton pump inhibitors when prescribed for peptic ulcer disease for long-term at maximum doses (9.4 %). The number of medications were found to have a positive correlation with pre-admission PIM use (r(s) = 0.49, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Pre-admission PIM use is highly prevalent among the studied population. Strategies to reduce PIM use should be undertaken by physicians and pharmacists. The use of the STOPP criteria in clinical practice to reduce prescriptions of inappropriate medications requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing medication reviews with follow-up for older adults in community pharmacies and examined potential outcomes on medication use.
METHOD: A pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted with 4 cluster-randomised community pharmacies to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Two community pharmacies served as intervention and control groups. Both groups recruited older adults over 60 who were followed over 6 months. The translated Medication use Questionnaire (MedUseQ) was administered at baseline and 6 months for both groups. The outcomes were to assess the feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up and the probable medication use outcomes from the intervention.
RESULTS: The intervention and control groups comprised 14 and 13 older adults. A total of 35 recommendations were made by pharmacists in the intervention group and 8 in the control group. MedUseQ was easily administered, providing some evidence the feasibility of the intervention. However, there were feasibility challenges such as a lack of pharmacists, collaborative practice, difficulties with the tool language, time constraints, and limited funds. Questionnaire results provided a signal of improvement in medication administration, adherence, and polypharmacy among intervention participants. The incidence of drug related problems was significantly higher in the control group (median = 1) after 6 months, U = 15, z = - 2.98, p = 0.01.
CONCLUSION: Medication review with follow-up is potentialy practical in community pharmacies, but there are feasibility issues. While these challenges can be addressed, it is essential to study larger sample sizes to establish more robust evidence regarding outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT05297461.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the incidence of unintentional discrepancies (medication errors), types of medication errors with its potential severity of patient harm and acceptance rate of pharmaceutical care interventions.
METHODS: A four-month cross-sectional study was conducted in the general medical wards of a tertiary hospital. All newly admitted patients with at least one prescription medication were recruited via purposive sampling. Medication history assessments were done by clinical pharmacists within 24 hours or as soon as possible after admission. Pharmacist-acquired medication histories were then compared with in-patient medication charts to detect discrepancies. Verification of the discrepancies, interventions, and assessment of the potential severity of patient harm resulting from medication errors were collaboratively carried out with the treating doctors.
RESULTS: There were 990 medication discrepancies detected among 390 patients recruited in this study. One hundred and thirty-five (13.6%) medication errors were detected in 93 (23.8%) patients (1.45 errors per patient). These were mostly contributed by medication omissions (79.3%), followed by dosing errors (9.6%). Among these errors, 88.2% were considered "significant" or "serious" but none were "life-threatening." Most (83%) of the pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by the doctors.
CONCLUSION: Medication history assessment by pharmacists proved vital in detecting medication errors, mostly medication omissions. Majority of the errors intervened by pharmacists were accepted by the doctors which prevented potential significant or serious patient harm.