Sophie Marien1, Bruno Krug2,2, Anne Spinewine2,2. 1. Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Brussels, Belgium sophie.marien@uclouvain.be. 2. Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain Drug Research Institute (LDRI), Clinical Pharmacy Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful development and implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, and identified additional reports from reference lists, reviews, and patent databases. Reports were included if the electronic tool supported medication history taking and the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. Two researchers independently selected studies, evaluated the quality of reporting, and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen reports relative to 11 tools were included. There were eight quality improvement projects, five observational effectiveness studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT protocols (ie, descriptions of RCTs in progress), and two patents. All tools were developed in academic environments in North America. Most used electronic data from multiple sources and partially implemented functionalities considered to be important. Relevant information on functionalities and implementation features was frequently missing. Evaluations mainly focused on usability, adherence, and user satisfaction. One RCT evaluated the effect on potential adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of electronic tools to support MedRec requires favorable context, properly designed tools, and attention to implementation features. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of these tools on the quality and safety of healthcare.
OBJECTIVES: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful development and implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, and identified additional reports from reference lists, reviews, and patent databases. Reports were included if the electronic tool supported medication history taking and the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. Two researchers independently selected studies, evaluated the quality of reporting, and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen reports relative to 11 tools were included. There were eight quality improvement projects, five observational effectiveness studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT protocols (ie, descriptions of RCTs in progress), and two patents. All tools were developed in academic environments in North America. Most used electronic data from multiple sources and partially implemented functionalities considered to be important. Relevant information on functionalities and implementation features was frequently missing. Evaluations mainly focused on usability, adherence, and user satisfaction. One RCT evaluated the effect on potential adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of electronic tools to support MedRec requires favorable context, properly designed tools, and attention to implementation features. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of these tools on the quality and safety of healthcare.
Authors: Eric G Poon; Barry Blumenfeld; Claus Hamann; Alexander Turchin; Erin Graydon-Baker; Patricia C McCarthy; John Poikonen; Perry Mar; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Robert K Hallisey; Sandra Smith; Christine McCormack; Marilyn Paterno; Christopher M Coley; Andrew Karson; Henry C Chueh; Cheryl Van Putten; Sally G Millar; Margaret Clapp; Ishir Bhan; Gregg S Meyer; Tejal K Gandhi; Carol A Broverman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Stephanie K Mueller; Sunil Kripalani; Jason Stein; Peter Kaboli; Tosha B Wetterneck; Amanda H Salanitro; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Mark V Williams; Edward Etchells; Daniel J Cobaugh; Lakshmi Halasyamani; Stephanie Labonville; David Hanson; Hasan Shabbir; John Gardella; Rebecca Largen; Jeffey Schnipper Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2013-08
Authors: Alexander Turchin; Claus Hamann; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Erin Graydon-Baker; Sally G Millar; Patricia C McCarthy; Christopher M Coley; Tejal K Gandhi; Carol A Broverman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katie A Siek; Danish U Khan; Stephen E Ross; Leah M Haverhals; Jane Meyers; Steven R Cali Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Blake Lesselroth; Shawn Adams; Robert Felder; David A Dorr; Phillip Cauthers; Victoria Church; David Douglas Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2009-05
Authors: Leonie Heyworth; Allison M Paquin; Justice Clark; Victor Kamenker; Max Stewart; Tracey Martin; Steven R Simon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Amanda S Mixon; Sunil Kripalani; Jason Stein; Tosha B Wetterneck; Peter Kaboli; Stephanie Mueller; Elisabeth Burdick; Nyryan V Nolido; Stephanie Labonville; Jacquelyn A Minahan; E John Orav; Jenna Goldstein; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Theodore B Wright; Kathleen Adams; Victoria L Church; Mimi Ferraro; Scott Ragland; Anthony Sayers; Stephanie Tallett; Travis Lovejoy; Joan Ash; Patricia J Holahan; Blake J Lesselroth Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Blake J Lesselroth; Kathleen Adams; Victoria L Church; Stephanie Tallett; Yelizaveta Russ; Jack Wiedrick; Christopher Forsberg; David A Dorr Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Nancy Winslade; Todd C Lee; Aude Motulsky; Ari Meguerditchian; Melissa Bustillo; Sarah Elsayed; David L Buckeridge; Isabelle Couture; Christina J Qian; Teresa Moraga; Allen Huang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Michal Abrahamowicz; David L Buckeridge; Melissa Bustillo; Alan J Forster; Nadyne Girard; Bettina Habib; James Hanley; Allen Huang; Siyana Kurteva; Todd C Lee; Ari N Meguerditchian; Teresa Moraga; Aude Motulsky; Lina Petrella; Daniala L Weir; Nancy Winslade Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Gerda Bernhard; Cornelia Mahler; Hanna Marita Seidling; Marion Stützle; Dominik Ose; Ines Baudendistel; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 5.428