Discrepancies in medication lists after hospital discharge in patients with multiple long-term conditions.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Malin Olsen Syversen, Mikas Glatkauskas, Sandra Johanne Sedeniussen, Monica Hauge, Steffi Benny, Kristine Horgen, Marianne Lea, Rita Romskaug, Anne Mette Njaastad, Torunn Wibe, Karin Svensberg, Liv Mathiesen
{"title":"Discrepancies in medication lists after hospital discharge in patients with multiple long-term conditions.","authors":"Malin Olsen Syversen, Mikas Glatkauskas, Sandra Johanne Sedeniussen, Monica Hauge, Steffi Benny, Kristine Horgen, Marianne Lea, Rita Romskaug, Anne Mette Njaastad, Torunn Wibe, Karin Svensberg, Liv Mathiesen","doi":"10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.03.062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inadequate information flow in the transition from hospital to home poses a challenge to medication safety, especially for patients with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs).</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the frequency, categories, underlying reasons, and potential clinical relevance of medication discrepancies (MDs) by comparing medication lists in hospital discharge summaries with actual medication use after discharge in patients with MLTCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Home-dwelling adult patients with MLTCs, using minimum four medications were included near the time of their planned discharge, from one internal medicine and two geriatric wards in Oslo, to this cross-sectional observational study. Medication reconciliation was performed 1-2 weeks post-discharge. Discrepancies between the medication list in the discharge summary and the patient's medication use were classified into six categories. A panel assessed the potential clinical relevance of the MDs in a short-term and long-term perspective.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>150 patients, median age 75 years (range 22-94), were included. 132 (88 %) had at least one MD, with a median of 3 per patient (range 0-10). The most common MDs involved medications in use although not listed in the discharge summary. Apparent lack of or insufficient medication reconciliation during the hospital stay was the most frequent reason for MDs. Of the MDs, 5.5 % and 28 % were assessed to be of potential clinical relevance in the short-term and long-term perspective, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Almost all patients had MDs following hospital discharge. The potential clinical relevance increases over time if MDs are not corrected. Our findings highlight the need for more effective interventions to ensure medication safety in care transitions for this vulnerable population.</p>","PeriodicalId":48126,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.03.062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inadequate information flow in the transition from hospital to home poses a challenge to medication safety, especially for patients with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs).

Purpose: To investigate the frequency, categories, underlying reasons, and potential clinical relevance of medication discrepancies (MDs) by comparing medication lists in hospital discharge summaries with actual medication use after discharge in patients with MLTCs.

Methods: Home-dwelling adult patients with MLTCs, using minimum four medications were included near the time of their planned discharge, from one internal medicine and two geriatric wards in Oslo, to this cross-sectional observational study. Medication reconciliation was performed 1-2 weeks post-discharge. Discrepancies between the medication list in the discharge summary and the patient's medication use were classified into six categories. A panel assessed the potential clinical relevance of the MDs in a short-term and long-term perspective.

Results: 150 patients, median age 75 years (range 22-94), were included. 132 (88 %) had at least one MD, with a median of 3 per patient (range 0-10). The most common MDs involved medications in use although not listed in the discharge summary. Apparent lack of or insufficient medication reconciliation during the hospital stay was the most frequent reason for MDs. Of the MDs, 5.5 % and 28 % were assessed to be of potential clinical relevance in the short-term and long-term perspective, respectively.

Conclusion: Almost all patients had MDs following hospital discharge. The potential clinical relevance increases over time if MDs are not corrected. Our findings highlight the need for more effective interventions to ensure medication safety in care transitions for this vulnerable population.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP) is a quarterly publication featuring original scientific reports and comprehensive review articles in the social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences. Topics of interest include outcomes evaluation of products, programs, or services; pharmacoepidemiology; medication adherence; direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications; disease state management; health systems reform; drug marketing; medication distribution systems such as e-prescribing; web-based pharmaceutical/medical services; drug commerce and re-importation; and health professions workforce issues.
×
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