RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Differences in medication reconciliation interventions between six hospitals: a mixed method study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.26.21266902
DO 10.1101/2021.11.26.21266902
A1 Stuijt, C C M
A1 vd Bemt, B J F
A1 Boerlage, V E
A1 Janssen, M J A
A1 Taxis, K
A1 Karapinar, F
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/28/2021.11.26.21266902.abstract
AB Background Although medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently.Objective Quantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for these differences.Methods This explanatory retrospective mixed method study included patients from six hospitals and various wards in case MedRec was performed both on hospital admission and discharge. Information on pharmacy interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies and medication optimizations were collected. Based on these quantitative results, interviews and a focus group was performed to give insight in MedRec processes. Descriptive analysis was used for the quantitative-, content analysis for the qualitative part.Results On admission, patients with at least one discrepancy varied from 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD± 2.4) Upon discharge, these numbers ranged from 5-28% while optimizations reached 2% (admission) to 95% (discharge).The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, healthcare professionals involved, location and moment of the interview plus embedding and extent of medication optimization.Conclusions Hospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. A combination of patient-mix, healthcare professionals involved, location and timing of the interview plus embedding and extent of medication optimization resulted in the highest yield of MedRec interventions on unintended medication discrepancies and optimizations. This study supports to give direction to optimize MedRec processes in hospitals.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study is supported by insurance company VGZ Eindhoven, the Netherlands. The funding source had no role in the design, conduct, and reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the results for publicationAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Nijmegen ethics committee reviewed the study and confirmed compliance with the Dutch legislation by giving the waiver of approval ((registration nr 2013/328).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors