Project description:BackgroundPoor prescribing and incomplete medication administration have been linked to increased lengths of hospitalization for patients with Parkinson disease. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has recommended that patients with Parkinson disease receive a pharmacy consultation within 2 h of admission to hospital.ObjectivesTo examine whether the time for a pharmacy team member to obtain a best possible medication history (BPMH) was associated with administration-related medication errors. The primary outcome was the proportion of doses with a medication error during a patient's admission in relation to the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a registered pharmacist (RPh) or registered pharmacy technician (RPhT). The secondary objective was to compare the proportion of doses with a medication error in relation to whether the BPMH was completed by an RPh or an RPhT.MethodsThis retrospective chart review involved patients with Parkinson disease who were admitted to the medicine services at London Health Sciences Centre from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2018. Patients were included if they had Parkinson disease and a medication regimen that included levodopa-carbidopa. For all patients, an RPhT or RPh conducted the initial BPMH or updated the BPMH. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine whether a correlation existed between administration-related errors and completion of the BPMH by a pharmacy staff member.ResultsA total of 84 patients with 104 admissions were included. There was no significant correlation between the time to completion of the initial BPMH by a pharmacy team member and the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.32). Although RPhTs completed the BPMHs more quickly than RPhs (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference between pharmacy team members in terms of the proportion of doses with medication errors (p = 0.86).ConclusionsCompleting a BPMH within 2 h of a patient's admission, as per the ISMP recommendation, is unlikely to affect administration-related medication errors, given that no correlation was identified. Expediting BPMH without addressing other factors is insufficient, and initiatives are required to improve the medication administration process.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:In recent years, the involvement of pharmacy technicians in medication reconciliation has increasingly been investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the implications on professional roles and collaboration when a best possible medication history (BPMH) at admission is obtained by pharmacy technicians. DESIGN:Qualitative study with semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach. SETTING:Internal medicine units in two mid-sized Swiss hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:21 staff members working at the two sites (6 pharmacy technicians, 2 pharmacists, 6 nurses, 5 physician residents and 2 senior physicians). RESULTS:Pharmacy technicians generally appreciated their new tasks in obtaining a BPMH. However, they also experienced challenges associated with their new role. Interviewees reported unease with direct patient interaction and challenges with integrating the new BPMH tasks into their regular daily duties. We found that pharmacists played a key role in the BPMH process, since they act as coaches for pharmacy technicians, transmit information to the physicians and reconcile preadmission medication lists with admission orders. Physicians stated that they benefitted from the delegation of administrative tasks to pharmacy technicians. Regarding the interprofessional collaboration, we found that pharmacy technicians in the study acted on a preliminary administrative level and did not become part of the larger treatment team. There was no direct interaction between pharmacy technicians and physicians, but rather, the supervising pharmacists acted as intermediaries. CONCLUSION:The tasks assumed by pharmacy technicians need to be clearly defined and fully integrated into existing processes. Engaging pharmacy technicians may generate new patient safety risks and inefficiencies due to process fragmentation. Communication and information flow at the interfaces between professional groups therefore need to be well organised. More research is needed to understand if and under which circumstances such a model can be efficient and contribute to improving medication safety.

Project description:BackgroundAccreditation standards have outlined the need for staff in emergency departments to initiate the medication reconciliation process for patients who are at risk of adverse drug events. The authors hypothesized that a guided form could be used by non-admitted patients in the emergency department to assist with completion of a best possible medication history (BPMH).ObjectiveTo determine the percentage of patients in the non-acute care area of the emergency department who could complete a guided BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies (defined as no major discrepancies and no more than 1 moderate discrepancy).MethodsThis prospective exploratory study was conducted over 4 weeks in February and March 2016. Data were collected using the self-administered BPMH form, patient interviews, and a data collection form. After completion of the guided BPMH form, patients were randomly selected for interview by a pharmacy team member to ensure their self-completed BPMH forms were complete and accurate. Eligible patients were those with non-acute needs who had undergone triage to the waiting room. Patients who were already admitted and those with immediate triage to the acute care or trauma area of the emergency department were excluded.ResultsOf the 160 patients who were interviewed, 146 (91.3%) completed the form with no more than 1 moderate discrepancy (but some number of minor discrepancies). There were no discrepancies in 31 (19.4%) of the BPMH forms, and 101 (63.1%) of the forms had only minor discrepancies.ConclusionsMost of the patients interviewed by the pharmacy team were able to complete the BPMH form with no clinically significant discrepancies. The self-administered BPMH form would be a useful tool to initiate medication reconciliation in the emergency department for this patient population, but used on its own, it would not be a reliable source of BPMH information, given the relatively low number of patients who completed the form with no discrepancies.

Project description:BackgroundDuring conversations about medication switches, pharmacy staff often deliver a message to patients that may lead to negative emotions. In these situations, clear and patient-centered communication is important.AimTo gain insight into pharmacy technician-patient experiences regarding the communication during medication switching encounters, and in specific to map the needs and preferences of patients and whether pharmacy technicians (PTs) meet these.MethodPTs were invited to fill in a questionnaire via the Dutch Panel on practical research for Pharmacy Employees. Online questionnaires were distributed to adult chronic mediation users in two patient panels. Questionnaires contained questions on how PTs and patients experience the medication switch conversations at the moment (i.e. type of information patients need/receive, timing of information, channel, communication style), and whether the needs and preferences of patients are met.ResultsIn total, 138 PTs and 4679 patients responded. PTs indicated that they regularly struggle with these conversations due to emotional or negative responses of patients. Most patients expressed the need for information about why the medication switch took place (68%) and about the (same) effect of the medication (61%), while fewer patients currently receive this information (21% and 39%, respectively). Patients also indicated they need verbal information during pick-up/delivery (45%), written information beforehand (29%) and during pick-up/delivery (25%), while patients more often receive verbal information during pick-up (58%), and less frequently receive written information beforehand (6%) and during pick-up/delivery (18%).ConclusionCommunication during medication switch conversations generally goes well. However, there is a difference between what PTs claim they do and what patients experience, e.g. space for questions and patients' satisfaction about this aspect. Dealing with patient emotions is also difficult for PTs. Patients emphasize they need more information than they currently receive, preferably before switching. Matching these needs and preferences can improve patient-centered communication.

Project description:BackgroundThe health risks associated with poor medication practices in the home suggest that patients would benefit from home-based medication reviews that could detect and resolve these issues. However, remuneration for home visits often excludes ambulatory, nonhomebound patients. A subset of these patients have issues that cannot be adequately identified and resolved during the course of a typical pharmacy-based medication review.PurposeThis study aims to characterize the prevalence and nature of "hidden in the home" medication management issues in nonhomebound patients.MethodsPharmacists facilitated subject enrollment among patients at 6 community pharmacies in Toronto over a 15-month period, from January 2016 to March 2017. Patients taking 5 or more chronic medications who were ambulatory (able to visit the pharmacy) and scored 3 points or higher on a prescreening questionnaire were invited to participate. Visits included a standard medication review, the identification of drug therapy problems and an assessment of the patient's medication and organization/storage practices, followed by a medication cabinet cleanup.ResultsOne hundred patients were recruited, with a mean age of 76.9 years and taking on average 10 chronic medications. Pharmacists identified a total of 275 drug therapy problems (2.75 per patient). The most common issues reported additional therapy required (23.6%), nonadherence (23.3%) and adverse drug reactions (17.8%). For those patients 65 years or older (87%), 32% were found to be using at least 1 medication on the Beers Criteria list, while 6% were using 3 or more. Sulfonylureas, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and short-acting benzodiazepines were the most commonly implicated drugs. Medications were removed from the homes of 67% of the patients, with expiry of medication being the most common reason for removal (54.2%). The mean duration of a home visit was 49.5 minutes.ConclusionPharmacist-directed home medication reviews offer an effective mechanism to address the pharmacotherapy issues of patients taking multiple medications. These findings highlight the frequency of medication management issues in this group and suggest that home medication reviews could serve to minimize inappropriate use of medication and maximize health care cost savings in this unique patient population. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2019;152:xx-xx.

Project description:BackgroundAdmission medication history (AMH) errors frequently cause medication order errors and patient harm.ObjectiveTo quantify AMH error reduction achieved when pharmacy staff obtain AMHs before admission medication orders (AMO) are placed.MethodsThis was a three-arm randomised controlled trial of 306 inpatients. In one intervention arm, pharmacists, and in the second intervention arm, pharmacy technicians, obtained initial AMHs prior to admission. They obtained and reconciled medication information from multiple sources. All arms, including the control arm, received usual AMH care, which included variation in several common processes. The primary outcome was severity-weighted mean AMH error score. To detect AMH errors, all patients received reference standard AMHs, which were compared with intervention and control group AMHs. AMH errors and resultant AMO errors were independently identified and rated by ≥2 investigators as significant, serious or life threatening. Each error was assigned 1, 4 or 9 points, respectively, to calculate severity-weighted AMH and AMO error scores for each patient.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar across arms (mean±SD age 72±16 years, number of medications 15±7). Analysis was limited to 278 patients (91%) with reference standard AMHs. Mean±SD AMH errors per patient in the usual care, pharmacist and technician arms were 8.0±5.6, 1.4±1.9 and 1.5±2.1, respectively (p<0.0001). Mean±SD severity-weighted AMH error scores were 23.0±16.1, 4.1±6.8 and 4.1±7.0 per patient, respectively (p<0.0001). These AMH errors led to a mean±SD of 3.2±2.9, 0.6±1.1 and 0.6±1.1 AMO errors per patient, and mean severity-weighted AMO error scores of 6.9±7.2, 1.5±2.9 and 1.2±2.5 per patient, respectively (both p<0.0001).ConclusionsPharmacists and technicians reduced AMH errors and resultant AMO errors by over 80%. Future research should examine other sites and patient-centred outcomes.Trial registration numberNCT02026453.

Dataset Information

Best Possible Medication Histories by Registered Pharmacy Technicians in Ambulatory Care.

Publications

Best Possible Medication Histories by Registered Pharmacy Technicians in Ambulatory Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets