Improving medicine information on discharge summaries through implementation of a reconciliation-based intervention

IF 1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Anna Nguyen BPharm (Hons), GradCertPharmPrac, Stephanie Gibson BPharm (Hons), MClinPharm, Paul Wembridge BPharm (Hons), MClinPharm
{"title":"Improving medicine information on discharge summaries through implementation of a reconciliation-based intervention","authors":"Anna Nguyen BPharm (Hons), GradCertPharmPrac,&nbsp;Stephanie Gibson BPharm (Hons), MClinPharm,&nbsp;Paul Wembridge BPharm (Hons), MClinPharm","doi":"10.1002/jppr.1828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The handover of medication-related information at the point of discharge often occurs via the discharge summary (DS), although these frequently contain errors. We aimed to investigate whether an intern pharmacist reviewing the medication details in discharge summaries (DSs), reconciling them with the discharge prescription and pointing out any discrepancies with the medical staff would reduce the rate of medication errors. The intervention was retrospectively reviewed by comparing medication information on the DS with the discharge prescription (considered the ‘source of truth’). Error rates on the DS were compared to a control group of patients discharged over a different 2-week period from the same ward. A modified APINCH (Antimicrobials, Potassium and other electrolytes, Insulin, Narcotics and other sedatives, Chemotherapeutic agents, Heparin and other anticoagulants, Systems) classification system was used to identify high-risk errors. The time taken to perform the intervention was measured and details of any recommendations collected. The study included 22 intervention patients and 31 control patients. Patients who received the intervention were less likely to have one or more medication errors on their DS (any: 4% vs 84%, p &lt; 0.01; high-risk: 0% vs 29%, p &lt; 0.01). The intern pharmacist made a total of 77 recommendations during the intervention. Six recommendations (8%) related to high-risk medications. The median time required to undertake the first review was 4 min, and the second review took 1 min. In conclusion, we found a reconciliation-based intervention involving an intern pharmacist could reduce the rate of medication errors on DSs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","volume":"52 6","pages":"454-457"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jppr.1828","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jppr.1828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The handover of medication-related information at the point of discharge often occurs via the discharge summary (DS), although these frequently contain errors. We aimed to investigate whether an intern pharmacist reviewing the medication details in discharge summaries (DSs), reconciling them with the discharge prescription and pointing out any discrepancies with the medical staff would reduce the rate of medication errors. The intervention was retrospectively reviewed by comparing medication information on the DS with the discharge prescription (considered the ‘source of truth’). Error rates on the DS were compared to a control group of patients discharged over a different 2-week period from the same ward. A modified APINCH (Antimicrobials, Potassium and other electrolytes, Insulin, Narcotics and other sedatives, Chemotherapeutic agents, Heparin and other anticoagulants, Systems) classification system was used to identify high-risk errors. The time taken to perform the intervention was measured and details of any recommendations collected. The study included 22 intervention patients and 31 control patients. Patients who received the intervention were less likely to have one or more medication errors on their DS (any: 4% vs 84%, p < 0.01; high-risk: 0% vs 29%, p < 0.01). The intern pharmacist made a total of 77 recommendations during the intervention. Six recommendations (8%) related to high-risk medications. The median time required to undertake the first review was 4 min, and the second review took 1 min. In conclusion, we found a reconciliation-based intervention involving an intern pharmacist could reduce the rate of medication errors on DSs.

通过实施以和解为基础的干预措施,改善出院总结的医学信息
出院时药物相关信息的移交通常通过出院摘要(DS)进行,尽管这些摘要经常包含错误。本研究旨在探讨实习药师审阅出院摘要(DSs)中的用药细节,与出院处方核对,并指出与医务人员的差异是否会降低用药错误率。通过比较DS上的药物信息和出院处方(被认为是“事实来源”)对干预进行回顾性评价。将DS的错误率与同一病房在不同两周内出院的对照组患者进行比较。采用改进的APINCH(抗菌素、钾及其他电解质、胰岛素、麻醉品及其他镇静剂、化疗药物、肝素及其他抗凝剂)分类系统来识别高危差错。测量了进行干预所需的时间,并收集了任何建议的详细信息。该研究包括22名干预患者和31名对照患者。接受干预的患者在DS中出现一种或多种药物错误的可能性较低(任何:4% vs 84%, p < 0.01;高风险:0% vs 29%, p < 0.01)。实习药师在干预期间共提出77条建议。6项建议(8%)与高危药物有关。进行第一次审查所需的中位数时间是4分钟,第二次审查需要1分钟。综上所述,我们发现有实习药师参与的调解干预可以降低DSs的用药错误率。
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
Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research
Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The purpose of this document is to describe the structure, function and operations of the Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, the official journal of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA). It is owned, published by and copyrighted to SHPA. However, the Journal is to some extent unique within SHPA in that it ‘…has complete editorial freedom in terms of content and is not under the direction of the Society or its Council in such matters…’. This statement, originally based on a Role Statement for the Editor-in-Chief 1993, is also based on the definition of ‘editorial independence’ from the World Association of Medical Editors and adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
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