Kelli Kalb1, Stephen Shalansky, Michael Legal, Nadia Khan, Irene Ma, Garth Hunte. 1. , BSc(Pharm), ACPR, was, at the time of writing, a pharmacy resident, and is now a staff editor for Martindale, the Complete Drug Reference at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, London, England.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a recent study, 50% of the patients who were admitted to a hospital's general medicine ward had at least one error in medication orders at the time of admission related to inaccuracies in the medication history. The use of computerized prescription databases has been suggested as a way to improve medication reconciliation at the time of admission. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and describe unintended discrepancies between a best possible medication history and medications ordered on admission to the general medicine ward in a hospital with routine access to a provincial outpatient prescription database (British Columbia's PharmaNet). METHODS: This prospective study involved 20 patients who were regularly using at least 4 prescription medications before admission to hospital. The best possible medication history for each patient (based on a review of the medical chart and the PharmaNet record and an interview with the patient) was compared with the physician's admission orders to identify any discrepancies. The frequency and perceived severity of discrepancies, graded independently by 3 physicians, were compared with observations from a similar study conducted at a hospital where a prescription database was not available. RESULTS: The 20 patients were recruited between September 2005 and January 2006. For 8 patients (40%), information in the PharmaNet database was consistent with the prescription medication list obtained during the best possible medication history at the time of admission. For the other 12 patients, a total of 30 unintended discrepancies were identified, 13 (43%) of which were classified as having potential for moderate or severe harm. The proportion of patients with unintended discrepancies was similar to that for the comparison cohort (60% versus 54%). Although the percentage of discrepancies involving omissions was lower than in the comparison population (37% versus 46%), these results were offset by a higher proportion of commission discrepancies (27% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Unintended discrepancies were frequent, despite use of the PharmaNet database at the time of admission. Inconsistencies between the PharmaNet record and patients' actual medication use, coupled with failure to verify PharmaNet data with patients, were likely contributing factors.
BACKGROUND: In a recent study, 50% of the patients who were admitted to a hospital's general medicine ward had at least one error in medication orders at the time of admission related to inaccuracies in the medication history. The use of computerized prescription databases has been suggested as a way to improve medication reconciliation at the time of admission. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and describe unintended discrepancies between a best possible medication history and medications ordered on admission to the general medicine ward in a hospital with routine access to a provincial outpatient prescription database (British Columbia's PharmaNet). METHODS: This prospective study involved 20 patients who were regularly using at least 4 prescription medications before admission to hospital. The best possible medication history for each patient (based on a review of the medical chart and the PharmaNet record and an interview with the patient) was compared with the physician's admission orders to identify any discrepancies. The frequency and perceived severity of discrepancies, graded independently by 3 physicians, were compared with observations from a similar study conducted at a hospital where a prescription database was not available. RESULTS: The 20 patients were recruited between September 2005 and January 2006. For 8 patients (40%), information in the PharmaNet database was consistent with the prescription medication list obtained during the best possible medication history at the time of admission. For the other 12 patients, a total of 30 unintended discrepancies were identified, 13 (43%) of which were classified as having potential for moderate or severe harm. The proportion of patients with unintended discrepancies was similar to that for the comparison cohort (60% versus 54%). Although the percentage of discrepancies involving omissions was lower than in the comparison population (37% versus 46%), these results were offset by a higher proportion of commission discrepancies (27% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Unintended discrepancies were frequent, despite use of the PharmaNet database at the time of admission. Inconsistencies between the PharmaNet record and patients' actual medication use, coupled with failure to verify PharmaNet data with patients, were likely contributing factors.
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: Kaitlin R Stockton; Maeve E Wickham; Simon Lai; Katherin Badke; Karen Dahri; Diane Villanyi; Vi Ho; Corinne M Hohl Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-05-05
Authors: Brittany M Wills; William Darko; Robert Seabury; Luke A Probst; Christopher D Miller; Gregory M Cwikla Journal: J Res Pharm Pract Date: 2016 Apr-Jun
Authors: Janne Kutschera Sund; Olav Sletvold; Trude Cecilie Mellingsæter; Randi Hukari; Torstein Hole; Per Einar Uggen; Petra Thiemann Vadset; Olav Spigset Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 2.692