Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Bow Lane, Dublin 2, Ireland.

Published: August 2018

Background: Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption.

Objectives: To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation.

Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria: We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome.

Main Results: We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' Conclusions: The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513651PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010791.pub2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

medication reconciliation
24
medication discrepancies
20
certainty evidence
20
medication
14
healthcare utilisation
12
studies
12
reconciliation
11
evidence
10
care
9
participants
9

Similar Publications

Background: Health authorities worldwide have invested in digital technologies to establish robust information exchange systems for improving the safety and efficiency of medication management. Nevertheless, inaccurate medication lists and information gaps are common, particularly during care transitions, leading to avoidable harm, inefficiencies, and increased costs. Besides fragmented health care processes, the inconsistent incorporation of patient-driven changes contributes to these problems.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: More than 20% of prescription errors in hospitals are due to an incomplete medication history. Medication reconciliation is a solution to decrease unintentional discrepancies between medications taken at home and hospital prescriptions. It is a normalised clinical activity but it is time consuming.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Meaningful Medication Reconciliation.

Prof Case Manag

January 2025

Lynn S. Muller, JD, RN, BA-HCM, CCM, began her career at Pace University as a Registered Professional Nurse (RN), went onto earn her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Health Care Management at St. Peter's University of New Jersey and then her Juris Doctor from Quinnipiac University School of Law. She is currently a practicing Attorney and the managing partner of Muller & Muller. Her practice includes the defense of healthcare professionals before the state licensing boards, case management litigation, family law, wills, trusts, and estates, as well as consulting representation of medical practitioners, facilities and health service corporations on such issues as regulatory compliance and day-to-day operations. She is a popular and sought-after keynote and session speaker at national and regional conferences. She is the Contributing Editor of Professional Case Management: The Official Journal of the Case Management Society of America (CMSA), She is a former member of the Board of Directors of CMSA of New York City and a former adjunct Professor at Saint Peter's University School of Nursing in the MSN and DNP Programs. She is the author of over 80 articles in nursing and case management journals and listed on the NIH website. She is a contributor to the 2016 CMSA Standards of Practice and CMSA Career & Knowledge Pathways. She is the author of both legal chapters of the 3rd edition of Case Management: A Practical Guide for Education and Practice and 3rd edition of the CMSA Core Curriculum for Case Management. She is a former Commissioner for the Commission for Case Management Certification (CCMC), where she now serves on the Professional Development and Education Committee, is a Certified Facilitator for CCM CERTIFCATION 360 a Multi-day Immersion Program and other special projects. She is a contributor to the CCMC Case Management Body of Knowledge (CMBOK) and a past President of the New Jersey Chapter of CMSA. She is the former Director of Social Services for the Borough of Bergenfield, NJ, a community-based case management program she developed and initiated. She has also served her community as public defender, municipal court judge, councilwoman and chaired the Borough's Barrier Free Committee.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Deprescribing inappropriate cardiovascular and antidiabetic medication has been shown to be feasible and safe. Healthcare providers often perceive the deprescribing of cardiovascular and antidiabetic medication as a challenge and therefore it is still not widely implemented in daily practice.

Aim: The aim was to assess whether training focused on conducting a deprescribing-oriented clinical medication review (CMR) results in a reduction of the inappropriate use of cardiovascular and antidiabetic medicines.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Medication reconciliation has been acknowledged as a key intervention against medication errors. More than half of the medication errors that happen during care transitions are caused by unjustified medication discrepancies and up to one-third of these mistakes may be harmful. The study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of health care providers in on medication reconciliation process, pre and post educational intervention.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!