Antoine Garnier1, Pierre Voirol2,3,4, Carole Nachar2, Olivier Lamy1, Farshid Sadeghipour2,3,4. 1. Service of Internal Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Service of Pharmacy, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and main obstacles to the implementation of a medication reconciliation (MR) process in a Swiss hospital and to develop a standardised method which can be used in similar healthcare systems. METHODS: For this prospective, observational single-centre and single-ward study, a best possible medication history (BPMH) was established by a clinical pharmacist for 147 patients with heart failure based on two sources and a patient interview for each case. Identified discrepancies with medication histories established during emergency service were conveyed to the ward physician. At the end of each hospital stay, the planned discharge treatments were compared with the BPMHs to identify discrepancies and to propose modifications. After a final validation, the comparative treatment plans were distributed. RESULTS: MR was conducted for 120 (82%) patients and the mean time needed was 74 min/patient. At least one discrepancy was identified among 94% of the patients on admission, with 4.1 discrepancies found per patient (mainly omissions). At discharge, 83% of the patients had at least one discrepancy, with 2.3 discrepancies found per patient (mainly unintentional substitutions). The majority (86%) of pharmaceutical interventions to adjust the discharge prescriptions were accepted by the physician. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised method of MR which offers precise definitions of discrepancies and key tools for the process was developed. This method was applicable to most of our cohort and it effectively identified medication discrepancies. Two potential obstacles for its implementation are the time needed for MR and the questionable impact of pharmaceutical interventions on discrepancies.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and main obstacles to the implementation of a medication reconciliation (MR) process in a Swiss hospital and to develop a standardised method which can be used in similar healthcare systems. METHODS: For this prospective, observational single-centre and single-ward study, a best possible medication history (BPMH) was established by a clinical pharmacist for 147 patients with heart failure based on two sources and a patient interview for each case. Identified discrepancies with medication histories established during emergency service were conveyed to the ward physician. At the end of each hospital stay, the planned discharge treatments were compared with the BPMHs to identify discrepancies and to propose modifications. After a final validation, the comparative treatment plans were distributed. RESULTS: MR was conducted for 120 (82%) patients and the mean time needed was 74 min/patient. At least one discrepancy was identified among 94% of the patients on admission, with 4.1 discrepancies found per patient (mainly omissions). At discharge, 83% of the patients had at least one discrepancy, with 2.3 discrepancies found per patient (mainly unintentional substitutions). The majority (86%) of pharmaceutical interventions to adjust the discharge prescriptions were accepted by the physician. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised method of MR which offers precise definitions of discrepancies and key tools for the process was developed. This method was applicable to most of our cohort and it effectively identified medication discrepancies. Two potential obstacles for its implementation are the time needed for MR and the questionable impact of pharmaceutical interventions on discrepancies.
Authors: Kristine M Gleason; Jennifer M Groszek; Carol Sullivan; Denise Rooney; Cynthia Barnard; Gary A Noskin Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Vincent C Tam; Sandra R Knowles; Patricia L Cornish; Nowell Fine; Romina Marchesano; Edward E Etchells Journal: CMAJ Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 8.262
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: Pieter Cornu; Stephane Steurbaut; Tinne Leysen; Eva De Baere; Claudine Ligneel; Tony Mets; Alain G Dupont Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Jennifer L Kirwin; Michael C Cotugno; Stephanie A Wahlstrom; Brandon A Brown; Emily Tarvin; Allen Kachalia; Mark Horng; Christopher L Roy; Sylvia C McKean; David W Bates Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: Jacqueline D Wong; Jana M Bajcar; Gary G Wong; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Jin-Hyeun Huh; Annemarie Cesta; Gregory R Pond; Olavo A Fernandes Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 3.154
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: 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: Denise J van der Nat; Victor J B Huiskes; Margot Taks; Bart P H Pouls; Bart J F van den Bemt; Hein A W van Onzenoort Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Denise J van der Nat; Margot Taks; Victor J B Huiskes; Bart J F van den Bemt; Hein A W van Onzenoort Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2022-01-15
Authors: Denise J van der Nat; Victor J B Huiskes; Aatke van der Maas; Judith Y M N Derijks-Engwegen; Hein A W van Onzenoort; Bart J F van den Bemt Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.908