AIMS: Medication reconciliation is a part of the medication management process and facilitates improved patient safety during care transitions. The aims of the study were to evaluate how medication reconciliation has been conducted and how medication discrepancies have been classified. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Web of Science (WOS), in accordance with the PRISMA statement up to April 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the types of medication discrepancy found through the medication reconciliation process and contained a classification system for discrepancies. Data were extracted by one author based on a predefined table, and 10% of included studies were verified by two authors. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately one-third of included studies (n = 35, 36.8%) utilized a 'gold' standard medication list. The majority of studies (n = 57, 60%) used an empirical classification system and the number of classification terms ranged from 2 to 50 terms. Whilst we identified three taxonomies, only eight studies utilized these tools to categorize discrepancies, and 11.6% of included studies used different patient safety related terms rather than discrepancy to describe the disagreement between the medication lists. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that clear and consistent information on prevalence, types, causes and contributory factors of medication discrepancy are required to develop suitable strategies to reduce the risk of adverse consequences on patient safety. Therefore, to obtain that information, we need a well-designed taxonomy to be able to accurately measure, report and classify medication discrepancies in clinical practice.
AIMS: Medication reconciliation is a part of the medication management process and facilitates improved patient safety during care transitions. The aims of the study were to evaluate how medication reconciliation has been conducted and how medication discrepancies have been classified. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Web of Science (WOS), in accordance with the PRISMA statement up to April 2016. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the types of medication discrepancy found through the medication reconciliation process and contained a classification system for discrepancies. Data were extracted by one author based on a predefined table, and 10% of included studies were verified by two authors. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Approximately one-third of included studies (n = 35, 36.8%) utilized a 'gold' standard medication list. The majority of studies (n = 57, 60%) used an empirical classification system and the number of classification terms ranged from 2 to 50 terms. Whilst we identified three taxonomies, only eight studies utilized these tools to categorize discrepancies, and 11.6% of included studies used different patient safety related terms rather than discrepancy to describe the disagreement between the medication lists. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that clear and consistent information on prevalence, types, causes and contributory factors of medication discrepancy are required to develop suitable strategies to reduce the risk of adverse consequences on patient safety. Therefore, to obtain that information, we need a well-designed taxonomy to be able to accurately measure, report and classify medication discrepancies in clinical practice.
Authors: Jessica M Downes; Katherine S O'Neal; Michael J Miller; Jeremy L Johnson; Brooke L Gildon; Michael A Weisz Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Samuel N Forjuoh; Michael D Reis; Glen R Couchman; Barbalee Symm; Saundra Mason; Ricky O'Banon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Caroline M Johnson; Todd R Marcy; Donald L Harrison; Ronald E Young; Eric L Stevens; Jill Shadid Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2010 Jul-Aug
Authors: Marlies M E Geurts; Merel van der Flier; Anne M B de Vries-Bots; Thaliet I C Brink-van der Wal; Johan J de Gier Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2013-04-18
Authors: Rhiannon Braund; Carolyn V Coulter; Amy Jane Bodington; Lauren Margaret Giles; Anna-Marie Greig; Larissa Jane Heaslip; Brooke Jane Marshall Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2014-04-04
Authors: Carina Carvalho Silvestre; Lincoln Marques Cavalcante Santos; Alfredo Dias de Oliveira-Filho; Divaldo Pereira de Lyra Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2017-10
Authors: Thaciana Dos Santos Alcântara; Fernando Castro de Araújo Neto; Helena Ferreira Lima; Dyego Carlos S Anacleto de Araújo; Júlia Mirão Sanchez; Giulyane Targino Aires-Moreno; Carina de Carvalho Silvestre; Divaldo P de Lyra Junior Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2020-11-11
Authors: Kevin Migliazza; Caroline Bähler; Daniel Liedtke; Andri Signorell; Stefan Boes; Eva Blozik Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 2.655