Martin L Canning1, Andrew Munns1, Bonnie Tai1. 1. Pharmacy Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Chermside, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the quality of best possible medication history (BPMH) taking activities undertaken by pharmacists. To identify factors which impact upon erroneous documentation. To assess risks associated with erroneous documentation of BPMH by pharmacists. METHOD: A clinical pharmacist randomly selected patients across a tertiary referral, metropolitan hospital over an 9-day period and documented comparator medication histories (CMHs) using a structured interview. BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of routine care and CMH were compared, and erroneous documentation was classified according to previous definitions in the literature. Erroneous documentation was risk stratified. RESULTS: 99 BPMH and CMH were compared. There were 14 medication omissions which occurred across 10 patients and 14 discrepancies across 12 patients. There was no association identified between erroneous documentation and pharmacist seniority/experience (p=0.25), where BPMH taken (p=0.7), day of week BPMH documented (p=0.45) or time since admission to when BPMH was documented (p=1). Patient age did not impact erroneous documentation rates (p=0.22). There was an association between the number of sources used to confirm a medication history and erroneous documentation incidence (p=0.035). The number of medications increased the rate of documentation error. While 85.19% (n=115) of erroneous documentation were deemed unlikely to cause patient discomfort or clinical deterioration, 1.48% (n=2) had the potential to result in severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Six out of seven BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of usual clinical practice are accurate. Major influences on accuracy include the number of medications and sources used. There is a low possibility that erroneous documentation by pharmacists will cause harm.
AIM: To determine the quality of best possible medication history (BPMH) taking activities undertaken by pharmacists. To identify factors which impact upon erroneous documentation. To assess risks associated with erroneous documentation of BPMH by pharmacists. METHOD: A clinical pharmacist randomly selected patients across a tertiary referral, metropolitan hospital over an 9-day period and documented comparator medication histories (CMHs) using a structured interview. BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of routine care and CMH were compared, and erroneous documentation was classified according to previous definitions in the literature. Erroneous documentation was risk stratified. RESULTS: 99 BPMH and CMH were compared. There were 14 medication omissions which occurred across 10 patients and 14 discrepancies across 12 patients. There was no association identified between erroneous documentation and pharmacist seniority/experience (p=0.25), where BPMH taken (p=0.7), day of week BPMH documented (p=0.45) or time since admission to when BPMH was documented (p=1). Patient age did not impact erroneous documentation rates (p=0.22). There was an association between the number of sources used to confirm a medication history and erroneous documentation incidence (p=0.035). The number of medications increased the rate of documentation error. While 85.19% (n=115) of erroneous documentation were deemed unlikely to cause patient discomfort or clinical deterioration, 1.48% (n=2) had the potential to result in severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Six out of seven BPMH documented by pharmacists as part of usual clinical practice are accurate. Major influences on accuracy include the number of medications and sources used. There is a low possibility that erroneous documentation by pharmacists will cause harm.
Entities:
Keywords:
accuracy; admission medication list; best possible medication history; medication history; pharmacist; pharmacy; quality; reconciliation
Authors: Stephane Steurbaut; Lies Leemans; Tinne Leysen; Eva De Baere; Pieter Cornu; Tony Mets; Alain G Dupont Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Sabrina De Winter; Isabel Spriet; Christophe Indevuyst; Peter Vanbrabant; Didier Desruelles; Marc Sabbe; Jean Bernard Gillet; Alexander Wilmer; Ludo Willems Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-07-01
Authors: Kenneth S Boockvar; Sharon Blum; Anne Kugler; Elayne Livote; Kari A Mergenhagen; Jonathan R Nebeker; Daniel Signor; Soojin Sung; Jessica Yeh Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-05-09
Authors: Kristine M Gleason; Molly R McDaniel; Joseph Feinglass; David W Baker; Lee Lindquist; David Liss; Gary A Noskin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Avantika Saraf Shah; Emily Kay Hollingsworth; Matthew Stephen Shotwell; Amanda S Mixon; Sandra Faye Simmons; Eduard Eric Vasilevskis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Louise Deep; Carl R Schneider; Rebekah Moles; Asad E Patanwala; Linda L Do; Rosemary Burke; Jonathan Penm Journal: Pharm Pract (Granada) Date: 2021-09-15