Explore the vast range of titles available.

To assess the impacts of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation (MedRec) on medication discrepancies and post-discharge health services utilization in elderly patients in Jordan. And to identify predictors of post discharge outcomes. Newly admitted patients, aged above 65 years were randomly allocated into either a group receiving pharmacist led MedRec or standard care. Within 24 hours of admission, a clinical pharmacist compiled a list of the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) using at least two sources of information. The pharmacist compared the BPMHs to the admission charts to identify discrepancies and resolved them accordingly. One month post-discharge, patients were assessed for health services use, namely hospital readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and adverse drug events (ADEs). Logistic regressions used to investigate predictors of post discharge outcomes. A total of 128 patients with 151 medication discrepancies were included: 82 (54.3%) discrepancies in the intervention group, and 69 (45.7%) in the control group. A total of 52 Pharmacist-led interventions were recommended to physicians, of which 49 (94.2%) were accepted/implemented. At discharge, the majority of unintentional discrepancies were successfully resolved (p < 0.001). At 30 days post-discharge, patients who were readmitted to the hospital and visited the ED were significantly from the control group. There was no significant difference with respect to experiencing ADEs among the study groups. Patients who received pharmacist-led MedRec had almost 70% lower likelihood of hospital readmission and ED visits. Discrepancies at discharge was associated with higher odds of hospital readmissions. Pharmacist-led MedRec services improved continuity of care for elderly patients. Implementing a structured reconciliation process successfully resolved discrepancies and reduced hospital readmissions as well as ED visits at 30-days post-discharge. This outlines potentials for healthcare cost savings. Future studies are recommended to explore long-term benefits, cost-effectiveness, and integrating pharmacist-led MedRec into standard discharge planning.

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).

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.

IntroductionIneffective coordination during care transitions from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) costs Medicare US$2.8–US$3.4 billion annually and results in avoidable adverse events. Approximately 70% of patients experience medication errors during these transitions, resulting in downstream consequences such as medication-related problems and unplanned readmissions. Patients and caregivers report significant emotional distress and concerns, particularly regarding medication management. Current protocols often fail to ensure effective medication management and communication between hospital and SNF teams. Developed with input from multiple interest holders, the Pharmacy Integrated Transitions (PIT) programme enhances these transitions by improving medication safety and communication. The programme includes a pharmacist who reconciles patients’ medications during transitions from hospitals to SNFs, and a structured handoff between hospital and SNF clinical teams. A rigorous, pragmatic trial is needed to assess the programme’s effectiveness in enhancing care transitions compared with standard practices.The PIT trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the PIT programme in improving patients’ care transitions from hospitals to SNFs compared with usual care, and to characterise multiple interest holders’ perspectives on its implementation fidelity, effectiveness and needed support for sustainment.Methods and analysisThe PIT trial is a parallel cluster-randomised controlled crossover trial design, with randomisation occurring at the SNF cluster level. The trial is conducted across 4 hospitals and 14 independent SNFs in Washington State. SNFs are stratified by patient volume before being randomly assigned to either the PIT programme or usual care. The trial aims to include a diverse patient population transitioning from hospitals to SNFs. The primary outcome is medication-related problems within 30 days posthospital discharge. Clinical adverse events, readmission rates and emergency department visits will be compared. Additionally, we will conduct a mixed-methods summative evaluation to assess multiple interest holders’ perspectives on the PIT programme’s implementation fidelity, effectiveness and the support required for its sustainment.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the University of Washington’s Human Subjects Division on 9 September 2020 (STUDY00011018_PIT). The trial was reviewed by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (IRB) and was issued a waiver of consent. The University of Washington serves as the IRB for all 14 of the Post Acute Care Skilled Nursing Facility study sites. Results from this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results may also be presented at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05241951.

Background Despite medication being the most common healthcare intervention and medication-related incidents being common in hospitals, many rural and remote hospitals in Australia lack onsite pharmacy services due to resource constraints. A Virtual Clinical Pharmacy Service (VCPS) staffed by two senior, rural generalist hospital pharmacists assigned to four hospitals each was implemented in rural and remote facilities to determine whether the VCPS increased adherence to National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (NSQHS). Methods A stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial was employed to sequentially implement a telehealth pharmacy service at one-month intervals in eight hospitals. The primary outcomes were patient-level medication reconciliation completion rates on admission and discharge. Secondary measures evaluated compliance with other NSQHS standards (including Best Possible Medication History, Medication Reconciliation and venous thromboembolism risk assessment), patient outcomes (including representation within 48 h, readmission within 28 days and length of stay), and detection of potential medication-related harms (including pharmacist identified medication related problems, reported medication errors and falls). Patients were invited to complete a patient-reported experience questionnaire. Data were collected from electronic medical records and analysed using mixed logistic regression models to estimate the effectiveness of the VCPS. Antimicrobial usage, falls, and medication errors were analysed at the facility level, while other data were analysed at the patient level. Results Compared to control ( n  = 535), patients in the intervention period ( n  = 527) were more likely to have an admission medication reconciliation completed (Odds Ratio (OR) 11.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.59–22.30, p  < 0.001) in models adjusted for the study period. A similar improvement was observed for discharge medication reconciliation completion (OR 4.07, CI 2.38–6.95, p  < 0.001), whereas a 33-fold improvement was seen in Best Possible Medication History completion (OR 33.27, CI 17.53–63.14, p  < 0.001). The VCPS documented 879 medication related problems, with 61% of patients having at least one medication-related problem documented by a pharmacist. There was no change in length of stay, falls, readmission rates or reported medication error rates; however, the study was not powered to detect these changes. Patient feedback was positive and comparable to in-person care, with 95% (179/189) reporting their overall experience as ‘good’ or ‘very good.’ No unintended harms were reported. Conclusions The VCPS improved compliance with national standards for medication safety, had high patient acceptability and resulted in the detection of clinically relevant medication-related issues in rural and remote settings. The applicability of virtual pharmacy should be explored in further rural and remote locations in addition to other settings such as metropolitan locations with no onsite clinical pharmacists. Ethics number GWHREC 2019/ETH13355. Trial registration ANZCTR registration number ACTRN12619001757101. Registered on 11/12/2019. Published trial protocol: A stepped wedge trial of efficacy and scalability of a virtual clinical pharmacy service (VCPS) in rural and remote NSW health facilities .

BackgroundMedication review with follow-up is essential for optimising medication utilisation among the older adult population in primary healthcare.AimThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing medication reviews with follow-up for older adults in community pharmacies and examined potential outcomes on medication use.MethodA pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted with 4 cluster-randomised community pharmacies to assess the feasibility of the intervention. Two community pharmacies served as intervention and control groups. Both groups recruited older adults over 60 who were followed over 6 months. The translated Medication use Questionnaire (MedUseQ) was administered at baseline and 6 months for both groups. The outcomes were to assess the feasibility of conducting medication review with follow-up and the probable medication use outcomes from the intervention.ResultsThe intervention and control groups comprised 14 and 13 older adults. A total of 35 recommendations were made by pharmacists in the intervention group and 8 in the control group. MedUseQ was easily administered, providing some evidence the feasibility of the intervention. However, there were feasibility challenges such as a lack of pharmacists, collaborative practice, difficulties with the tool language, time constraints, and limited funds. Questionnaire results provided a signal of improvement in medication administration, adherence, and polypharmacy among intervention participants. The incidence of drug related problems was significantly higher in the control group (median = 1) after 6 months, U = 15, z = − 2.98, p = 0.01.ConclusionMedication review with follow-up is potentialy practical in community pharmacies, but there are feasibility issues. While these challenges can be addressed, it is essential to study larger sample sizes to establish more robust evidence regarding outcomes.Clinical trial registry: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT05297461.

Background Several approaches to medication optimisation by identifying drug-related problems in older people have been described. Although some interventions have shown reductions in drug-related problems (DRPs), evidence supporting the effectiveness of medication reviews on clinical and economic outcomes is lacking. Application of the STOPP/START (version 2) explicit screening tool for inappropriate prescribing has decreased inappropriate prescribing and significantly reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and associated healthcare costs in older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. Therefore, application of STOPP/START criteria during a medication review is likely to be beneficial. Incorporation of explicit screening tools into clinical decision support systems (CDSS) has gained traction as a means to improve both quality and efficiency in the rather time-consuming medication review process. Although CDSS can generate more potential inappropriate medication recommendations, some of these have been shown to be less clinically relevant, resulting in alert fatigue. Moreover, explicit tools such as STOPP/START do not cover all relevant DRPs on an individual patient level. The OPERAM study aims to assess the impact of a structured drug review on the quality of pharmacotherapy in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. The aim of this paper is to describe the structured, multi-component intervention of the OPERAM trial and compare it with the approach in the comparator arm. Method This paper describes a multi-component intervention, integrating interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in defining DRPs. The intervention involves a structured history-taking of medication (SHiM), a medication review according to the systemic tool to reduce inappropriate prescribing (STRIP) method, assisted by a clinical decision support system (STRIP Assistant, STRIPA) with integrated STOPP/START criteria (version 2), followed by shared decision-making with both patient and attending physician. The developed method integrates patient input, patient data, involvement from other healthcare professionals and CDSS-assistance into one structured intervention. Discussion The clinical and economical effectiveness of this experimental intervention will be evaluated in a cohort of hospitalised, older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy in the multicentre, randomized controlled OPERAM trial (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multi-morbid elderly), which will be completed in the last quarter of 2019. Trial registration Universal Trial Number: U1111-1181-9400 Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02986425 , Registered 08 December 2016. FOPH (Swiss national portal): SNCTP000002183 . Netherlands Trial Register: NTR6012 (07-10-2016).

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 Multimorbid patients in nursing homes are prescribed long lists of medication, often without sufficient clinical evaluations beforehand. This results in poor clinical effects of the prescribed medication and significant side-effects, especially in patients with impaired cognition. The aim of this paper is to describe the process, content and implementation of a clinical medication review encompassing clinical testing and collegial support to prescribers. Methods The implementation process of a novel approach to medication review in nursing homes was logged thoroughly by structured staff feedback. Staff experienced promotors and barriers to implementation also were collected. The study was part of a cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 36 long-term care units received the COSMOS intervention. Nurses and physicians randomized to the intervention group participated in educational programs, training in clinical evaluation of the patients, and interprofessional medication review with collegial mentoring. Results The intervention group contained 297 patients from 36 nursing home units. There were 105 staff attendees for the education program. The units were served by 21 different physicians. Clinical medication reviews were performed in all units and all patients were assessed prior to the medication reviews. Of the 240 patients with a logged intervention process, 220 (92%) underwent a medication review. The intervention generated enthusiasm and improved communication among nursing staff and between nursing staff and physicians. The interprofessional discussions helped to facilitate difficult decisions pertaining to treatment levels. Reported barriers were lack of time, low engagement of all nursing staff and physicians, and ethical dilemmas. Conclusions Clinical medication reviews were implemented for almost all patients, and every patient was systematically assessed prior to the medication review. The physicians perceived collegial mentoring as an asset, learning from each other facilitated decision making in terms of difficult aspects of prescribing. Knowledge about barriers and promotors can improve implementation of similar interventions in other nursing homes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02238652 ). Registered July 7th 2014.

Background General practitioners (GP) and community pharmacists need information about hospital discharge patients’ medicines to continue their management in the community. This necessitates effective communication, collaboration, and reliable information-sharing. However, such handover is inconsistent, and whilst digital systems are in place to transfer information at transitions of care, these systems are passive and clinicians are not prompted about patients’ transitions. There are also gaps in communication between community pharmacists and GPs. These issues impact patient safety, leading to hospital readmissions and increased healthcare costs. Methods A three-phased, multi-method study design is planned to trial a multifaceted intervention to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions. Phase 1 is the co-design of the intervention with stakeholders and end-users; phase 2 is the development of the intervention; phase 3 is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 clusters (community pharmacies). Expected intervention components will be a hospital pharmacist navigator, primary care medication management review services, and a digital solution for information sharing. Phase 3 will recruit 10 patients per pharmacy cluster/month to achieve a sample size of 2200 patients powered to detect a 5% absolute reduction in unplanned readmissions from 10% in the control group to 5% in the intervention at 30 days. The randomisation and intervention will occur at the level of the patient’s nominated community pharmacy. Primary analysis will be a comparison of 30-day medication-related hospital readmissions between intervention and control clusters using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster (pharmacy) and a fixed effect for each step to account for secular trends. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12624000480583p , registered 19 April 2024.