BACKGROUND: The inaccurate recording of medicines on admission to hospital is an important cause of medication error. Medication reconciliation has been used to identify and correct these errors. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multimodal intervention involving medication reconciliation with real-time feedback and education would reduce the number of errors made by medical staff when recording medicines at the time of admission to hospital. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to the general medical wards of a teaching hospital were studied prospectively. Patients > or =75 years of age and on > or =5 medications were identified as the 'target group.' INTERVENTION: After admission, a second medication history was taken, and discrepancies were identified and communicated to the medical teams. An educational intervention to encourage prescribers to obtain accurate medication histories was conducted at the same time. MEASUREMENTS: The discrepancy rate was measured before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: There were 470 admissions in the 'target group.' Three hundred and thirty-eight of the admissions (71.9%) had one or more unintentional discrepancies. Although many discrepancies had little potential to cause harm, 33% were rated as clinically significant. During the study the discrepancy rate (prior to reconciliation) fell from 2.6 (SD 2.6) to 1.0 (SD 1.1) per admission (p < 0.0001). This decline in discrepancy rate remained significant (p = 0.001) even when only clinically important discrepancies were included. The proportion of admissions with one or more clinically important discrepancies also decreased during the study from 46% to 24% (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Errors in the recording of medicines at the time of hospital admission are common. Combining the feedback provided by medication reconciliation with prescriber education reduced the error rate. This approach may be useful when the resources are not available to perform medication reconciliation for all patients admitted to hospital.
BACKGROUND: The inaccurate recording of medicines on admission to hospital is an important cause of medication error. Medication reconciliation has been used to identify and correct these errors. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multimodal intervention involving medication reconciliation with real-time feedback and education would reduce the number of errors made by medical staff when recording medicines at the time of admission to hospital. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to the general medical wards of a teaching hospital were studied prospectively. Patients > or =75 years of age and on > or =5 medications were identified as the 'target group.' INTERVENTION: After admission, a second medication history was taken, and discrepancies were identified and communicated to the medical teams. An educational intervention to encourage prescribers to obtain accurate medication histories was conducted at the same time. MEASUREMENTS: The discrepancy rate was measured before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: There were 470 admissions in the 'target group.' Three hundred and thirty-eight of the admissions (71.9%) had one or more unintentional discrepancies. Although many discrepancies had little potential to cause harm, 33% were rated as clinically significant. During the study the discrepancy rate (prior to reconciliation) fell from 2.6 (SD 2.6) to 1.0 (SD 1.1) per admission (p < 0.0001). This decline in discrepancy rate remained significant (p = 0.001) even when only clinically important discrepancies were included. The proportion of admissions with one or more clinically important discrepancies also decreased during the study from 46% to 24% (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Errors in the recording of medicines at the time of hospital admission are common. Combining the feedback provided by medication reconciliation with prescriber education reduced the error rate. This approach may be useful when the resources are not available to perform medication reconciliation for all patients admitted to hospital.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Carol Sullivan; Kristine M Gleason; Denise Rooney; Jennifer M Groszek; Cynthia Barnard Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2005 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Vincent C Tam; Sandra R Knowles; Patricia L Cornish; Nowell Fine; Romina Marchesano; Edward E Etchells Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Patricia L Cornish; Sandra R Knowles; Romina Marchesano; Vincent Tam; Steven Shadowitz; David N Juurlink; Edward E Etchells Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-02-28
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Claus Hamann; Chima D Ndumele; Catherine L Liang; Marcy G Carty; Andrew S Karson; Ishir Bhan; Christopher M Coley; Eric Poon; Alexander Turchin; Stephanie A Labonville; Ellen K Diedrichsen; Stuart Lipsitz; Carol A Broverman; Patricia McCarthy; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-04-27
Authors: Peter Pronovost; Brad Weast; Mandalyn Schwarz; Rhonda M Wyskiel; Donna Prow; Shelley N Milanovich; Sean Berenholtz; Todd Dorman; Pamela Lipsett Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Amanda H Salanitro; Sunil Kripalani; Joanne Resnic; Stephanie K Mueller; Tosha B Wetterneck; Katherine Taylor Haynes; Jason Stein; Peter J Kaboli; Stephanie Labonville; Edward Etchells; Daniel J Cobaugh; David Hanson; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Mark V Williams; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 2.655