BACKGROUND: In an automated dose dispensing (ADD) service, medicines are packed in unit-dose bags according to administration times. When the service is initiated, the patient's medication list is reconciled and the medication is reviewed on the basis of this list. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this national study was to investigate how the medication list was reconciled, what type of medication review was conducted, and what changes were made to the patient's medications when the ADD service is initiated. SETTING: Primary care in Finland. METHOD: All patients enrolled in the service during a 3-week period in autumn 2010 were included in the study. All community pharmacies (n = 267) purchasing unit-dose bags from Espoonlahti Pharmacy documented the actions taken in the ADD initiation process using a structured data collection sheet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Information sources needed in medication reconciliation, the type of medication review conducted and changes made to patients' medications. RESULTS: Documentation was completed for 147 out of 325 new ADD users resulting 45 % as a response rate. More than one source was needed for 63 % of the patients in medication reconciliation. The most common sources used were nursing staff (72 % of the patients) and an existing medication list (71 %). Some type of medication review, most commonly a prescription review, was conducted for the majority of the patients (96 %), usually in multi-professional collaboration. Treatment-related changes were made for 43 % of the patients and technical changes were made for 93 % of the patients. CONCLUSION: The medication list was incomplete for more than half of the patients. Some type of medication review was conducted for most of the patients. Both treatment-related changes and technical changes were made on patients' medications during the initiation process. The start-up process of the ADD service needs further development to ensure a standard procedure and optimum use of resources.
BACKGROUND: In an automated dose dispensing (ADD) service, medicines are packed in unit-dose bags according to administration times. When the service is initiated, the patient's medication list is reconciled and the medication is reviewed on the basis of this list. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this national study was to investigate how the medication list was reconciled, what type of medication review was conducted, and what changes were made to the patient's medications when the ADD service is initiated. SETTING: Primary care in Finland. METHOD: All patients enrolled in the service during a 3-week period in autumn 2010 were included in the study. All community pharmacies (n = 267) purchasing unit-dose bags from Espoonlahti Pharmacy documented the actions taken in the ADD initiation process using a structured data collection sheet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Information sources needed in medication reconciliation, the type of medication review conducted and changes made to patients' medications. RESULTS: Documentation was completed for 147 out of 325 new ADD users resulting 45 % as a response rate. More than one source was needed for 63 % of the patients in medication reconciliation. The most common sources used were nursing staff (72 % of the patients) and an existing medication list (71 %). Some type of medication review, most commonly a prescription review, was conducted for the majority of the patients (96 %), usually in multi-professional collaboration. Treatment-related changes were made for 43 % of the patients and technical changes were made for 93 % of the patients. CONCLUSION: The medication list was incomplete for more than half of the patients. Some type of medication review was conducted for most of the patients. Both treatment-related changes and technical changes were made on patients' medications during the initiation process. The start-up process of the ADD service needs further development to ensure a standard procedure and optimum use of resources.
Authors: Jonny Olsson; Asa Bergman; Anders Carlsten; Thimothy Oké; Cecilia Bernsten; Ingrid K Schmidt; Johan Fastbom Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Saija N S Leikola; Johanna Virolainen; Lea Tuomainen; Raimo K Tuominen; Marja S A Airaksinen Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2012 Sep-Oct
Authors: Maarit S Dimitrow; Sanna I Mykkänen; Saija N S Leikola; Sirkka-Liisa Kivelä; Alan Lyles; Marja S A Airaksinen Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Björn Belfrage; Anders Koldestam; Christina Sjöberg; Susanna M Wallerstedt Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Juha Markus Heikkilä; Stina Parkkamäki; Johanna Salimäki; Sari Westermarck; Marika Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2018-07-03
Authors: A Kiiski; M Airaksinen; A Mäntylä; S Desselle; A Kumpusalo-Vauhkonen; T Järvensivu; M Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 3.921