BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies are common when patients cross organisational boundaries. However, little is known about the frequency of discrepancies within mental health and the efficacy of interventions to reduce discrepancies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacy-led reconciliation service on medication discrepancies on admissions to a secondary care mental health trust. SETTING: In-patient mental health services. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of pharmacy technician led medication reconciliation for admissions to a UK Mental Health NHS Trust. From March to June 2012 information on any unintentional discrepancies (dose, frequency and name of medication); patient demographics;and type and cause of the discrepancy was collected. The potential for harm was assessed based on two scenarios; the discrepancy was continued into primary care, and the discrepancy was corrected during admission. Logistic regression identified factors associated with discrepancies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean number of discrepancies per admission corrected by the pharmacy technician. RESULTS: Unintentional medication discrepancies occurred in 212 of 377 admissions (56.2 %). Discrepancies involving 569 medicines (mean 1.5 medicines per admission) were corrected.The most common discrepancy was omission(n = 464). Severity was assessed for 114 discrepancies. If the discrepancy was corrected within 16 days the potential harm was minor in 71 (62.3 %) cases and moderate in 43(37.7 %) cases whereas if the discrepancy was not corrected the potential harm was minor in 27 (23.7 %) cases and moderate in 87 (76.3 %) cases. Discrepancies were associated with both age and number of medications; the stronger association was age. CONCLUSIONS: Medication discrepancies are common within mental health services with potentially significant consequences for patients.Trained pharmacy technicians are able to reduce the frequency of discrepancies, improving safety.
BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies are common when patients cross organisational boundaries. However, little is known about the frequency of discrepancies within mental health and the efficacy of interventions to reduce discrepancies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacy-led reconciliation service on medication discrepancies on admissions to a secondary care mental health trust. SETTING: In-patient mental health services. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of pharmacy technician led medication reconciliation for admissions to a UK Mental Health NHS Trust. From March to June 2012 information on any unintentional discrepancies (dose, frequency and name of medication); patient demographics;and type and cause of the discrepancy was collected. The potential for harm was assessed based on two scenarios; the discrepancy was continued into primary care, and the discrepancy was corrected during admission. Logistic regression identified factors associated with discrepancies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean number of discrepancies per admission corrected by the pharmacy technician. RESULTS: Unintentional medication discrepancies occurred in 212 of 377 admissions (56.2 %). Discrepancies involving 569 medicines (mean 1.5 medicines per admission) were corrected.The most common discrepancy was omission(n = 464). Severity was assessed for 114 discrepancies. If the discrepancy was corrected within 16 days the potential harm was minor in 71 (62.3 %) cases and moderate in 43(37.7 %) cases whereas if the discrepancy was not corrected the potential harm was minor in 27 (23.7 %) cases and moderate in 87 (76.3 %) cases. Discrepancies were associated with both age and number of medications; the stronger association was age. CONCLUSIONS: Medication discrepancies are common within mental health services with potentially significant consequences for patients.Trained pharmacy technicians are able to reduce the frequency of discrepancies, improving safety.
Authors: Ian D Maidment; Camilla Haw; Jean Stubbs; Chris Fox; Cornelius Katona; Bryony Dean Franklin Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Pankdeep T Chhabra; Gail B Rattinger; Sarah K Dutcher; Melanie E Hare; Kelly L Parsons; Ilene H Zuckerman Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2011-04-21
Authors: Tamasine C Grimes; Catherine A Duggan; Tim P Delaney; Ian M Graham; Kevin C Conlon; Evelyn Deasy; Marie-Claire Jago-Byrne; Paul O' Brien Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.335
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: Marketa Marvanova; Christianne L Roumie; Svetlana K Eden; Courtney Cawthon; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Sunil Kripalani Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Jennifer R Pippins; Tejal K Gandhi; Claus Hamann; Chima D Ndumele; Stephanie A Labonville; Ellen K Diedrichsen; Marcy G Carty; Andrew S Karson; Ishir Bhan; Christopher M Coley; Catherine L Liang; Alexander Turchin; Patricia C McCarthy; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer H Lingler; Susan M Sereika; Carolyn M Amspaugh; Janet A Arida; Mary E Happ; Martin P Houze; Robert R Kaufman; Melissa L Knox; Lisa K Tamres; Fengyan Tang; Judith A Erlen Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 2.361