OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of medication errors when admitting patients with multiple chronic conditions to hospital, using a standard method. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective, observational study was conducted on patients with multiple chronic conditions admitted to a tertiary hospital. The medication reconciliation was performed using the standard method considered the most suitable for these patients by an expert panel, following the Delphi methodology. The main information source used for this was the computerised clinical notes, both in primary care and in the hospital, recurring to a clinical interview if necessary. Discrepancies justified by the clinician, as well as reconciliation errors were recorded. The type of error and the pharmacological group involved were analysed and the seriousness of each one of them was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included, with reconciliation errors being found in 75.4% of cases. The patients had 1397 prescribed drugs, of which 234 had discrepancies that required clarification by the clinician responsible. The clinician modified the prescription in 184 of these discrepancies, which were considered reconciliation errors. The types of error were: medication omission (139), commission (9), dose, prescription or different routes (24) and by incomplete prescription (12). Anti-anaemic drugs, vitamins, and psychoanaleptics were among the pharmacotherapeutic groups most affected by the errors. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with multiple chronic conditions with errors is elevated. The development of methods particularly directed at patients with multiple chronic conditions manages to detect and decrease a high percentage of medication errors associated with changes of care levels.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of medication errors when admitting patients with multiple chronic conditions to hospital, using a standard method. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective, observational study was conducted on patients with multiple chronic conditions admitted to a tertiary hospital. The medication reconciliation was performed using the standard method considered the most suitable for these patients by an expert panel, following the Delphi methodology. The main information source used for this was the computerised clinical notes, both in primary care and in the hospital, recurring to a clinical interview if necessary. Discrepancies justified by the clinician, as well as reconciliation errors were recorded. The type of error and the pharmacological group involved were analysed and the seriousness of each one of them was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included, with reconciliation errors being found in 75.4% of cases. The patients had 1397 prescribed drugs, of which 234 had discrepancies that required clarification by the clinician responsible. The clinician modified the prescription in 184 of these discrepancies, which were considered reconciliation errors. The types of error were: medication omission (139), commission (9), dose, prescription or different routes (24) and by incomplete prescription (12). Anti-anaemic drugs, vitamins, and psychoanaleptics were among the pharmacotherapeutic groups most affected by the errors. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with multiple chronic conditions with errors is elevated. The development of methods particularly directed at patients with multiple chronic conditions manages to detect and decrease a high percentage of medication errors associated with changes of care levels.