Care Transitions Service: A pharmacy-driven program for medication reconciliation through the continuum of care

Prior studies suggest that unintended medication discrepancies that represent errors are common at the time of hospital admission. These errors are particularly worthy of attention because they are not likely to be detected by computerized physician order entry systems. We prospectively studied patients reporting the use of at least 4 regular prescription medications who were admitted to general internal medicine clinical teaching units. The primary outcome was unintended discrepancies (errors) between the physicians' admission medication orders and a comprehensive medication history obtained through interview. We also evaluated the potential seriousness of these discrepancies. All discrepancies were reviewed with the medical team to determine if they were intentional or unintentional. All unintended discrepancies were rated for their potential to cause patient harm. After screening 523 admissions, 151 patients were enrolled based on the inclusion criteria. Eighty-one patients (53.6%; 95% confidence interval, 45.7%-61.6%) had at least 1 unintended discrepancy. The most common error (46.4%) was omission of a regularly used medication. Most (61.4%) of the discrepancies were judged to have no potential to cause serious harm. However, 38.6% of the discrepancies had the potential to cause moderate to severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. Medication errors at the time of hospital admission are common, and some have the potential to cause harm. Better methods of ensuring an accurate medication history at the time of hospital admission are needed.

Medication discrepancies at care transitions are common and lead to patient harm. Medication reconciliation is a strategy to reduce this risk. To summarize available evidence on medication reconciliation interventions in the hospital setting and to identify the most effective practices. MEDLINE (1966 through February 2012) and a manual search of article bibliographies. Twenty-six controlled studies. Data were extracted on study design, setting, participants, inclusion/exclusion criteria, intervention components, timing, comparison group, outcome measures, and results. Studies were grouped by type of medication reconciliation intervention-pharmacist related, information technology (IT), or other-and were assigned quality ratings using US Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Fifteen of 26 studies reported pharmacist-related interventions, 6 evaluated IT interventions, and 5 studied other interventions. Six studies were classified as good quality. The comparison group for all the studies was usual care; no studies compared different types of interventions. Studies consistently demonstrated a reduction in medication discrepancies (17 of 17 studies), potential adverse drug events (5 of 6 studies), and adverse drug events (2 of 2 studies) but showed an inconsistent reduction in postdischarge health care utilization (improvement in 2 of 8 studies). Key aspects of successful interventions included intensive pharmacy staff involvement and targeting the intervention to a high-risk patient population. Rigorously designed studies comparing different inpatient medication reconciliation practices and their effects on clinical outcomes are scarce. Available evidence supports medication reconciliation interventions that heavily use pharmacy staff and focus on patients at high risk for adverse events. Higher-quality studies are needed to determine the most effective approaches to inpatient medication reconciliation.

Medication reconciliation identifies and resolves unintentional discrepancies between patients' medication lists across transitions in care. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence about the effectiveness of hospital-based medication reconciliation interventions. Searches encompassed MEDLINE through November 2012 and EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through July 2012. Eligible studies evaluated the effects of hospital-based medication reconciliation on unintentional discrepancies with nontrivial risks for harm to patients or 30-day postdischarge emergency department visits and readmission. Two reviewers evaluated study eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study quality. Eighteen studies evaluating 20 interventions met the selection criteria. Pharmacists performed medication reconciliation in 17 of the 20 interventions. Most unintentional discrepancies identified had no clinical significance. Medication reconciliation alone probably does not reduce postdischarge hospital utilization but may do so when bundled with interventions aimed at improving care transitions.