Improving medication safety with proactive reconciliation in acute coronary syndrome patients: A randomized trial

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Mahdieh Fatemi-Nejad , Maryam Mehrpooya , Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam , Kimia Shirmohammadi , Maryam Zamanirafe , Mahdis Sharifikia , Azadeh Eshraghi
{"title":"Improving medication safety with proactive reconciliation in acute coronary syndrome patients: A randomized trial","authors":"Mahdieh Fatemi-Nejad ,&nbsp;Maryam Mehrpooya ,&nbsp;Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam ,&nbsp;Kimia Shirmohammadi ,&nbsp;Maryam Zamanirafe ,&nbsp;Mahdis Sharifikia ,&nbsp;Azadeh Eshraghi","doi":"10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at an increased risk of medication errors due to the complexity of medication regimens, frequent transitions of care, the use of high-risk medications, and their vulnerability to adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness and time efficiency of proactive versus retroactive medication reconciliation models in preventing unintentional medication discrepancies in patients hospitalized with ACS.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Conducted from January to June 2024 at a specialty cardiovascular teaching hospital in West Iran, the study included 162 eligible patients admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) with a diagnosis of ACS and taking at least five regular medications. Patients were randomly assigned to either the proactive or retroactive reconciliation group (81 each). A clinical pharmacist led both reconciliation models, supported by trained pharmacy interns who conducted patient interviews to obtain detailed medication histories. Primary outcome measures included the number and types of unintentional medication discrepancies identified, as well as their potential harm.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 654 medications were reconciled using the proactive approach, compared to 627 with the retroactive method. Among the discrepancies identified, 13 % were unintentional in the proactive group, whereas 44 % were unintentional in the retroactive group (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Additionally, 66.7 % of patients in the retroactive group had at least one discrepancy, compared to 38.3 % in the proactive group (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The average number of unintentional discrepancies per patient was significantly lower in the proactive approach (0.6) than in the retroactive model (1.7; p &lt; 0.001). Over 51 % of errors in the retroactive group had the potential for moderate or severe harm, while most errors in the proactive model were assessed as having only mild harm (86.5 %; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). The acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations regarding unintentional medication discrepancies was higher in the retroactive reconciliation group compared to the retroactive group (68 % vs. 21 %; p &lt; 0.001), and physicians reported greater satisfaction with the proactive method. Furthermore, the proactive model demonstrated superior time efficiency in completing the medication reconciliation process and resolving discrepancies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our findings demonstrate that the proactive model of medication reconciliation is more time-efficient and effective in preventing unintentional medication discrepancies in patients hospitalized with ACS compared to the retroactive approach.</div></div><div><h3>Trial registration</h3><div>The trial was registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (<span><span>https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74760</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, identifier code: IRCT20120215009014N494). Registration date: 2024-01-02.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73003,"journal":{"name":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 100577"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667276625000186","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

Background

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at an increased risk of medication errors due to the complexity of medication regimens, frequent transitions of care, the use of high-risk medications, and their vulnerability to adverse events.

Objective

This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness and time efficiency of proactive versus retroactive medication reconciliation models in preventing unintentional medication discrepancies in patients hospitalized with ACS.

Methods

Conducted from January to June 2024 at a specialty cardiovascular teaching hospital in West Iran, the study included 162 eligible patients admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) with a diagnosis of ACS and taking at least five regular medications. Patients were randomly assigned to either the proactive or retroactive reconciliation group (81 each). A clinical pharmacist led both reconciliation models, supported by trained pharmacy interns who conducted patient interviews to obtain detailed medication histories. Primary outcome measures included the number and types of unintentional medication discrepancies identified, as well as their potential harm.

Results

A total of 654 medications were reconciled using the proactive approach, compared to 627 with the retroactive method. Among the discrepancies identified, 13 % were unintentional in the proactive group, whereas 44 % were unintentional in the retroactive group (p < 0.001). Additionally, 66.7 % of patients in the retroactive group had at least one discrepancy, compared to 38.3 % in the proactive group (p < 0.001). The average number of unintentional discrepancies per patient was significantly lower in the proactive approach (0.6) than in the retroactive model (1.7; p < 0.001). Over 51 % of errors in the retroactive group had the potential for moderate or severe harm, while most errors in the proactive model were assessed as having only mild harm (86.5 %; p < 0.001). The acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations regarding unintentional medication discrepancies was higher in the retroactive reconciliation group compared to the retroactive group (68 % vs. 21 %; p < 0.001), and physicians reported greater satisfaction with the proactive method. Furthermore, the proactive model demonstrated superior time efficiency in completing the medication reconciliation process and resolving discrepancies.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that the proactive model of medication reconciliation is more time-efficient and effective in preventing unintentional medication discrepancies in patients hospitalized with ACS compared to the retroactive approach.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74760, identifier code: IRCT20120215009014N494). Registration date: 2024-01-02.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
103 days
×
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