Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"In addition to outlining practical guidelines for planting and harvesting, this book addresses healing completely in emotional and psychological form with a specific emphasis on each woman's spiritual journey.\"--Back cover.

AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of a ‘Do not interrupt’ bundled intervention to reduce non-medication-related interruptions to nurses during medication administration.MethodsA parallel eight cluster randomised controlled study was conducted in a major teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. Four wards were randomised to the intervention which comprised wearing a vest when administering medications; strategies for diverting interruptions; clinician and patient education; and reminders. Control wards were blinded to the intervention. Structured direct observations of medication administration processes were conducted. The primary outcome was non-medication-related interruptions during individual medication dose administrations. The secondary outcomes were total interruption and multitasking rates. A survey of nurses' experiences was administered.ResultsOver 8 weeks and 364.7 hours, 227 nurses were observed administering 4781 medications. At baseline, nurses experienced 57 interruptions/100 administrations, 87.9% were unrelated to the medication task being observed. Intervention wards experienced a significant reduction in non-medication-related interruptions from 50/100 administrations (95% CI 45 to 55) to 34/100 (95% CI 30 to 38). Controlling for clustering, ward type and medication route showed a significant reduction of 15 non-medication-related interruptions/100 administrations compared with control wards. A total of 88 nurses (38.8%) completed the poststudy survey. Intervention ward nurses reported that vests were time consuming, cumbersome and hot. Only 48% indicated that they would support the intervention becoming hospital policy.DiscussionNurses experienced a high rate of interruptions. Few were related to the medication task, demonstrating considerable scope to reduce unnecessary interruptions. While the intervention was associated with a statistically significant decline in non-medication-related interruptions, the magnitude of this reduction and its likely impact on error rates should be considered, relative to the effectiveness of alternate interventions, associated costs, likely acceptability and long-term sustainability of such interventions.

Purpose To examine the impact of systematic medication reconciliations upon hospital admission and of a medication review while in hospital on the number of inappropriate medications and unscheduled drug-related hospital revisits in elderly patients. Methods This was a prospective, controlled study in 210 patients, aged 65 years or older, who were admitted to one of three internal medicine wards at a University Hospital in Sweden. Intervention patients received the complete Lund Integrated Medicines Management model (medication reconciliation upon admission and discharge, and medication review and monitoring) provided by a multi-professional team, including a clinical pharmacist. Control patients received standard care and medication reconciliation upon discharge. Blinded reviewers evaluated the appropriateness of the prescribing (using the Medication Appropriateness Index) on admission and discharge, and assessed the probability that a drug-related problem was the reason for any patient readmitted to hospital or visiting the emergency department within 3 months of discharge (using World Health Organisation causality criteria). Results There was a greater decrease in the number of inappropriate drugs in the intervention group than in the control group for both the intention-to-treat population {51% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43–58%] vs. 39% (95% CI 30–48%); p  = 0.0446} and the per-protocol population [60% (95% CI 51–67%) vs. 44% (95% CI 34–52%); p  = 0.0106)]. There were six revisits to hospital in the intervention group which were judged as ‘possibly, probably or certainly drug-related’, compared with 12 in the control group ( p  = 0.0469). Conclusions In this study, medication reconciliation and review provided by a clinical pharmacist in a multi-professional team significantly reduced the number of inappropriate drugs and unscheduled drug-related hospital revisits among elderly patients.

Background Adverse drug events from preventable medication errors can result in patient morbidity and mortality, and in cost to the healthcare system. Medication reconciliation can improve communication and reduce medication errors at transitions in care. Objective Evaluate the impact of medication reconciliation and counselling intervention delivered by a pharmacist for medical patients on clinical outcomes 30 days after discharge. Setting Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman. Methods A randomized controlled study comparing standard care with an intervention delivered by a pharmacist and comprising medication reconciliation on admission and discharge, a medication review, a bedside medication counselling, and a take-home medication list. Medication discrepancies during hospitalization were identified and reconciled. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by reviewing electronic health records and telephone interviews. Main outcome measures Rates of preventable adverse drug events as primary outcome and healthcare resource utilization as secondary outcome at 30 days post discharge. Results A total of 587 patients were recruited (56 ± 17 years, 57% female); 286 randomized to intervention; 301 in the standard care group. In intervention arm, 74 (26%) patients had at least one discrepancy on admission and 100 (35%) on discharge. Rates of preventable adverse drug events were significantly lower in intervention arm compared to standard care arm (9.1 vs. 16%, p = 0.009). No significant difference was found in healthcare resource use. Conclusion The implementation of an intervention comprising medication reconciliation and counselling by a pharmacist has significantly reduced the rate of preventable ADEs 30 days post discharge, compared to the standard care. The effect of the intervention on healthcare resource use was insignificant. Pharmacists should be included in decentralized, patient-centred roles. The findings should be interpreted in the context of the study’s limitations.

Medication error is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, yet it can be a confusing and underappreciated concept. This article provides a review for practicing physicians that focuses on medication error (1) terminology and definitions, (2) incidence, (3) risk factors, (4) avoidance strategies, and (5) disclosure and legal consequences. A medication error is any error that occurs at any point in the medication use process. It has been estimated by the Institute of Medicine that medication errors cause 1 of 131 outpatient and 1 of 854 inpatient deaths. Medication factors (eg, similar sounding names, low therapeutic index), patient factors (eg, poor renal or hepatic function, impaired cognition, polypharmacy), and health care professional factors (eg, use of abbreviations in prescriptions and other communications, cognitive biases) can precipitate medication errors. Consequences faced by physicians after medication errors can include loss of patient trust, civil actions, criminal charges, and medical board discipline. Methods to prevent medication errors from occurring (eg, use of information technology, better drug labeling, and medication reconciliation) have been used with varying success. When an error is discovered, patients expect disclosure that is timely, given in person, and accompanied with an apology and communication of efforts to prevent future errors. Learning more about medication errors may enhance health care professionals' ability to provide safe care to their patients.

Background Improving medication safety implies patient-centred multidisciplinary cooperation. During the hospital stay for an acute care episode, the patient needs a comprehensive management to guarantee the best possible outcome. Methods The study was designed as a non-blinded, multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised clinical trial, taking place in six French University Hospitals. Each cluster began with the control period in which standard care did not include pharmaceutical intervention. Every 14-day period, one hospital unit was electronically randomised to switch to the intervention period until all cluster groups received the intervention, which consisted of collaborative pharmaceutical care (CPC) associating medication reconciliation at hospital admission, pharmaceutical analysis of the medication order, medication review and collaborative meeting. The primary outcome was assessing the intervention through the rate of patients with at least one medication error (ME) on the admission medication order (such as omission, wrong dose or wrong route of administration), comparing the two periods. Results CPC decreased the rate of patients with at least one ME from 88.9% (n = 243) to 29.2% (n = 267) ( p  < 0.0001). A total of 1817 MEs were discovered, of which 1121 (61.7%) were in the control period and 696 (38.3%) in the intervention period before resolution by the CPC. After resolving 567 of them, 129 medication errors still remained after CPC. So, a median of 3 MEs [IQR = 1;6] per patient were detected in the control period vs 0 [IQR = 0;1] after CPC in the intervention period ( p  < 0.0001). Patients were 21-times more likely to avoid a ME with CPC (OR: 20.8 [8.3;52.2], p  < 0.0001). The rate of patients with a 2–3 critical ME level decreased from 70.8% to 12.0% in the control vs intervention periods respectively (OR: 18.4 [7.7;43.9], p  < 0.0001). Conclusions CPC can prevent the occurrence of MEs and thus can improve inpatients’ medication management and safety. Pharmacists play a key role in combating medication-related harm in healthcare settings. Trial registration This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the reference number NCT02598115 (2015–11–04).

ABSTRACT Background Little research has examined the incidence, clinical relevance, and predictors of medication reconciliation errors at hospital admission and discharge. Objective To identify patient- and medication-related factors that contribute to pre-admission medication list (PAML) errors and admission order errors, and to test whether such errors persist in the discharge medication list. Design, Participants We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 423 adults with acute coronary syndromes or acute decompensated heart failure admitted to two academic hospitals who received pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation during the Pharmacist Intervention for Low Literacy in Cardiovascular Disease (PILL–CVD) Study. Main Measures Pharmacists assessed the number of total and clinically relevant errors in the PAML and admission and discharge medication orders. We used negative binomial regression and report incidence rate ratios (IRR) of predictors of reconciliation errors. Key Results On admission, 174 of 413 patients (42%) had ≥1 PAML error, and 73 (18%) had ≥1 clinically relevant PAML error. At discharge, 158 of 405 patients (39%) had ≥1 discharge medication error, and 126 (31%) had ≥1 clinically relevant discharge medication error. Clinically relevant PAML errors were associated with older age (IRR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.00– 2.12) and number of pre-admission medications (IRR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10–1.25), and were less likely when a recent medication list was present in the electronic medical record (EMR) (IRR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.96). Clinically relevant admission order errors were also associated with older age and number of pre-admission medications. Clinically relevant discharge medication errors were more likely for every PAML error (IRR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19–1.45) and number of medications changed prior to discharge (IRR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01–1.11). Conclusions Medication reconciliation errors are common at hospital admission and discharge. Errors in preadmission medication histories are associated with older age and number of medications and lead to more discharge reconciliation errors. A recent medication list in the EMR is protective against medication reconciliation errors.

Background Medication Management Review (MMR) is a patient-focused, structured and collaborative health care service provided in the community setting to optimize patient understanding and quality use of medicines. Objective To conduct a randomized control trial of the MMR program in Jordan, by a pharmacist identifying treatment related problems (TRPs) through home visits, assessing type and frequency of TRPs, and eventual effect of resolving TRPs identified by the pharmacist and accepted by the physician on the health status of participating patients. Setting Outpatient clinic at the Jordan University Hospital, Amman, Jordan. Method Consecutive patients from outpatient clinics who were eligible for the study were recruited and randomly distributed into two groups (control and intervention). All patients were visited at home by the pharmacist who delivered only for intervention group counseling regarding self-reported adherence, frequency of monitoring and education regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy. After identifying TRPs, the pharmacist sent a letter to the physician with certain recommendations for patients in the intervention group only. Physician ticked the approved recommendations and returned the report to the pharmacist, allowing the pharmacist to convey the approved changes to the patients. Patients were referred back to their physicians for confirmation of any changes in treatment. Both groups were reassessed after 2–3 months during their regular follow-up visits to their physicians. Main outcome measure To assess the impact of home medication review on the number of TRPs and self-reported adherence in outpatients with chronic diseases via hospital-based clinics in Jordan. Results A total of 158 TRPs were identified in 112 patients; mean TRP number was 1.63 per patient. As a result of the pharmacist intervention, there was a significant decrease in number of TRPs in the intervention group, the change in the mean was (1.23 (±1.19), P  < 0.001) versus the control group (0.29 (±1.24), P  = 0.114). After 3 months, a reduction in non-adherence was observed in the intervention (−0.81 (±1.48), P  < 0.001) in contrast to no change in self-reported adherence in the control (0.22 (± 1.12), P  = 0.168) group. Conclusion Overall, home-based medication review for patients with chronic conditions decreased the total number of TRPs and improved patient self-reported adherence.