主动和解提高急性冠脉综合征患者的用药安全性:一项随机试验

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Mahdieh Fatemi-Nejad , Maryam Mehrpooya , Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam , Kimia Shirmohammadi , Maryam Zamanirafe , Mahdis Sharifikia , Azadeh Eshraghi
{"title":"主动和解提高急性冠脉综合征患者的用药安全性:一项随机试验","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者由于用药方案的复杂性、护理的频繁转换、高风险药物的使用以及对不良事件的易感性,其用药错误的风险增加。目的:本随机对照试验旨在比较前瞻性和回顾性药物调节模式在预防ACS住院患者非故意用药差异方面的有效性和时间效率。方法该研究于2024年1月至6月在伊朗西部的一家心血管专科教学医院进行,包括162名诊断为ACS并服用至少5种常规药物的冠状动脉监护病房(CCU)住院的合格患者。患者被随机分配到主动和解组和追溯和解组(各81例)。一名临床药剂师领导这两种调解模式,并由训练有素的药房实习生提供支持,他们对患者进行访谈,以获得详细的用药史。主要结果测量包括确定的非故意用药差异的数量和类型,以及它们的潜在危害。结果主动法共调和654种药物,回顾性法调和627种药物。在发现的差异中,主动组中13%是无意的,而回顾性组中44%是无意的(p <;0.001)。此外,回溯组中66.7%的患者至少有一个差异,而主动组中这一比例为38.3% (p <;0.001)。每名患者意外差异的平均数量在主动方法(0.6)显著低于追溯模型(1.7;p & lt;0.001)。在回顾性组中,超过51%的错误具有中度或严重伤害的潜力,而在前瞻性模型中,大多数错误被评估为仅具有轻度伤害(86.5%;p & lt;0.001)。与回溯调解组相比,回溯调解组对药剂师关于非故意用药差异的建议的接受率更高(68%对21%;p & lt;0.001),医生对主动方法的满意度更高。此外,主动模式在完成药物调解过程和解决差异方面表现出更高的时间效率。结论前瞻性药物调解模式在预防ACS住院患者非故意用药差异方面比回顾性模式更具时效性和有效性。试验注册本试验在伊朗临床试验注册中心注册(https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74760,识别码:IRCT20120215009014N494)。报名日期:2024-01-02。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving medication safety with proactive reconciliation in acute coronary syndrome patients: A randomized trial

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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