Medication Reconciliation as Part of Admission Management-A Survey to Improve Drug Therapy Safety in a Urology Department.

IF 2 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.3390/pharmacy12040122
Yvonne Remane, Luisa Pfeiffer, Leonie Schuhmann, Annett Huke, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, Thilo Bertsche
{"title":"Medication Reconciliation as Part of Admission Management-A Survey to Improve Drug Therapy Safety in a Urology Department.","authors":"Yvonne Remane, Luisa Pfeiffer, Leonie Schuhmann, Annett Huke, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, Thilo Bertsche","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy12040122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Complete medication reconciliation during hospital admission is the rationale for further treatment decisions. A consecutive, controlled intervention study was conducted to assess discrepancies in medication reconciliation performed by nurses of the Urology Department compared to the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) established by pharmacists. This study included pre-intervention (control group, CG), nursing training as a pharmaceutical intervention, and post-intervention (intervention group, IG) groups. The discrepancies were classified as \"Missing\" (not recorded but taken), \"Added\" (additionally recorded) \"Strength\" (incorrect documented dosage), \"Intake\" (incorrect intake time/schedule), \"Double\" (double prescription), and \"Others\" (no clear assignment). Additionally, high-risk drug subgroup discrepancies were particularly prevalent and were evaluated. Training success was compared concerning discrepancies in the CG and IG. Generally, the percentage of discrepancies per patient found was lower in the IG than in the CG (78.1% vs. 87.5%, significantly). The category most identified was \"Missing\" (IG, 33.3% vs. CG, 35.2%). Overall, a discrepancy of 7.4% each (discrepancies: IG, 27 vs. CG, 38) was determined for high-risk drugs while \"Missing\" occurred (77.8% vs. 52.6%, out of 7.4%). Despite nursing training only partially reducing discrepancies, the implementation of medication reconciliation using BPMH by pharmacists could improve the process, especially for high-risk drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":30544,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy","volume":"12 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11359777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Complete medication reconciliation during hospital admission is the rationale for further treatment decisions. A consecutive, controlled intervention study was conducted to assess discrepancies in medication reconciliation performed by nurses of the Urology Department compared to the Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) established by pharmacists. This study included pre-intervention (control group, CG), nursing training as a pharmaceutical intervention, and post-intervention (intervention group, IG) groups. The discrepancies were classified as "Missing" (not recorded but taken), "Added" (additionally recorded) "Strength" (incorrect documented dosage), "Intake" (incorrect intake time/schedule), "Double" (double prescription), and "Others" (no clear assignment). Additionally, high-risk drug subgroup discrepancies were particularly prevalent and were evaluated. Training success was compared concerning discrepancies in the CG and IG. Generally, the percentage of discrepancies per patient found was lower in the IG than in the CG (78.1% vs. 87.5%, significantly). The category most identified was "Missing" (IG, 33.3% vs. CG, 35.2%). Overall, a discrepancy of 7.4% each (discrepancies: IG, 27 vs. CG, 38) was determined for high-risk drugs while "Missing" occurred (77.8% vs. 52.6%, out of 7.4%). Despite nursing training only partially reducing discrepancies, the implementation of medication reconciliation using BPMH by pharmacists could improve the process, especially for high-risk drugs.

作为入院管理一部分的药物调节--一项旨在提高泌尿科药物治疗安全性的调查。
入院期间完整的用药核对是做出进一步治疗决定的依据。我们开展了一项连续对照干预研究,以评估泌尿科护士进行的药物协调与药剂师建立的最佳用药史(BPMH)之间的差异。该研究包括干预前组(对照组,CG)、作为药物干预的护理培训组和干预后组(干预组,IG)。差异分为 "缺失"(未记录但已服用)、"添加"(额外记录)、"强度"(记录剂量不正确)、"摄入"(摄入时间/计划不正确)、"双重"(双重处方)和 "其他"(未明确分配)。此外,还对高风险药物亚组的差异进行了评估。比较了 CG 和 IG 差异方面的培训成功率。一般来说,在 IG 中发现的每位患者的差异百分比低于 CG(78.1% 对 87.5%,差异显著)。发现最多的类别是 "缺失"(IG,33.3%;CG,35.2%)。总体而言,在 "缺失"(77.8% 对 52.6%,共 7.4%)的情况下,高风险药物的差异率分别为 7.4%(差异率:IG,27 对 CG,38)。尽管护理培训只能部分减少差异,但药剂师使用 BPMH 实施药物对账可以改善这一过程,尤其是对高风险药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacy
Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信