Considerations for using the 'brown bag' strategy to reconcile medications during routine outpatient office visits.

Quality in primary care Pub Date : 2014-01-01
Erin M Sarzynski, Clare C Luz, Carlos F Rios-Bedoya, Shiwei Zhou
{"title":"Considerations for using the 'brown bag' strategy to reconcile medications during routine outpatient office visits.","authors":"Erin M Sarzynski,&nbsp;Clare C Luz,&nbsp;Carlos F Rios-Bedoya,&nbsp;Shiwei Zhou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Among medication reconciliation studies, varying methods are used to determine which medications patients are actually taking. One recommended approach is to ask patients to \"brown bag\" their medications for routine office visits.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine if 'brown bag' practices performed during routine office visits improve the accuracy of provider-documented medication lists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in a university affiliated community geriatric clinic. Forty-six cognitively intact elders who managed their own medications enrolled. Participants self-selected into two groups: 'brown-baggers' (BBs) and 'non-brown-baggers' (NBBs). Three medication lists were compared for each patient: provider-documented in patient's chart (chart list); researcher-generated by post-appointment semistructured interview (point-of-care [POC] list); post-appointment semi-structured telephone interview (telephone list, reference standard). Accuracy of chart and POC lists were compared with reference lists among BBs and NBBs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three (72%) patients brought some of their medications to scheduled appointments (BBs); of these, 39% bagged all of their medications. Excluding route as a variable, 35% of provider-documented chart lists were complete; only 6.5% were accurate. Some 76% of chart-documented medication lists contained inclusion, omission and/or dosing instruction discrepancies, with no differences between BBs and NBBs. However, POC lists obtained using a semi-structured interview included fewer inclusion and omission discrepancies among BBs than NBBs (42% v 77%, P = 0.05). In subset analyses by medication type, over-the-counter (OTC) medication documentation was more accurate among BBs than NBBs. Overall, chart lists contained two to three times more discrepancies than lists generated at POC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most BBs do not bag all their medications for office visits. Chart list accuracy is no better among BBs than NBBs, although patients who 'brown bag' their medications for office visits may prompt providers to conduct a more thorough medication history. Lists generated by semistructured interviewing, regardless of BB status, are more accurate than chart lists. Findings challenge benefits of the 'brown bag' unless coupled with in-depth questioning and processes for transferring information to chart lists.</p>","PeriodicalId":88096,"journal":{"name":"Quality in primary care","volume":"22 4","pages":"177-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Among medication reconciliation studies, varying methods are used to determine which medications patients are actually taking. One recommended approach is to ask patients to "brown bag" their medications for routine office visits.

Aims: To determine if 'brown bag' practices performed during routine office visits improve the accuracy of provider-documented medication lists.

Methods: This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted in a university affiliated community geriatric clinic. Forty-six cognitively intact elders who managed their own medications enrolled. Participants self-selected into two groups: 'brown-baggers' (BBs) and 'non-brown-baggers' (NBBs). Three medication lists were compared for each patient: provider-documented in patient's chart (chart list); researcher-generated by post-appointment semistructured interview (point-of-care [POC] list); post-appointment semi-structured telephone interview (telephone list, reference standard). Accuracy of chart and POC lists were compared with reference lists among BBs and NBBs.

Results: Thirty-three (72%) patients brought some of their medications to scheduled appointments (BBs); of these, 39% bagged all of their medications. Excluding route as a variable, 35% of provider-documented chart lists were complete; only 6.5% were accurate. Some 76% of chart-documented medication lists contained inclusion, omission and/or dosing instruction discrepancies, with no differences between BBs and NBBs. However, POC lists obtained using a semi-structured interview included fewer inclusion and omission discrepancies among BBs than NBBs (42% v 77%, P = 0.05). In subset analyses by medication type, over-the-counter (OTC) medication documentation was more accurate among BBs than NBBs. Overall, chart lists contained two to three times more discrepancies than lists generated at POC.

Conclusion: Most BBs do not bag all their medications for office visits. Chart list accuracy is no better among BBs than NBBs, although patients who 'brown bag' their medications for office visits may prompt providers to conduct a more thorough medication history. Lists generated by semistructured interviewing, regardless of BB status, are more accurate than chart lists. Findings challenge benefits of the 'brown bag' unless coupled with in-depth questioning and processes for transferring information to chart lists.

在常规门诊就诊中使用“棕色袋子”策略调和药物的考虑。
背景:在药物和解研究中,使用不同的方法来确定患者实际服用的药物。一种推荐的方法是让患者在常规就诊时将药物“打包”。目的:确定在常规办公室就诊中进行的“棕色包”实践是否提高了提供者记录的药物清单的准确性。方法:在一所大学附属社区老年诊所进行横断面初步研究。他们招募了46名认知能力完好的老年人,他们自己服用药物。参与者自我选择分为两组:“棕色袋子者”(BBs)和“非棕色袋子者”(NBBs)。对每位患者比较三种药物清单:提供者在患者图表中记录(图表列表);研究者通过预约后半结构化访谈(point-of-care [POC] list)生成;预约后半结构化电话访谈(电话名单,参考标准)。比较了bb和nbb参考表的准确性。结果:33例(72%)患者将部分药物带到预定预约(BBs);其中,39%的人将他们所有的药物都装进了袋子。排除航线作为一个变量,35%的供应商文档图表是完整的;只有6.5%是准确的。约76%的图表记录的药物清单包含纳入、遗漏和/或剂量说明差异,在bb和nbb之间没有差异。然而,使用半结构化访谈获得的POC列表在bb之间包含和遗漏的差异比nbb更少(42% vs 77%, P = 0.05)。在药物类型的子集分析中,非处方(OTC)药物文件在BBs中比在NBBs中更准确。总的来说,图表列表包含的差异是POC生成的列表的两到三倍。结论:大多数BBs并没有将他们所有的药物打包到诊所就诊。图表列表的准确性在BBs中并不比在NBBs中好,尽管那些在诊所就诊时将药物“打包”的患者可能会促使医生进行更彻底的用药史调查。由半结构化访谈生成的列表,无论BB状态如何,都比图表列表更准确。研究结果挑战了“棕色袋子”的好处,除非加上深入的问题和将信息转移到图表列表的过程。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信