Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant and implementable: A consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps

Journal of Hospital Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.08). 10/2010; 5(8):477 - 485. DOI: 10.1002/jhm.849
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Executive Summary:Medication errors and adverse events caused by them are common during and after a hospitalization. The impact of these events on patient welfare and the financial burden, both to the patient and the healthcare system, are significant. In 2005, The Joint Commission put forth medication reconciliation as National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) No. 8 in an effort to minimize adverse events caused during these types of care transitions. However, the meaningful and systematic implementation of medication reconciliation, as expressed through NPSG No. 8, proved to be extraordinarily difficult for healthcare institutions around the country.Given the importance of accurate and complete medication reconciliation for patient safety occurring across the continuum of care, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a stakeholder conference in 2009 to begin to identify and address: (1) barriers to implementation; (2) opportunities to identify best practices surrounding medication reconciliation; (3) the role of partnerships among traditional healthcare sites and nonclinical and other community-based organizations; and (4) metrics for measuring the processes involved in medication reconciliation and their impact on preventing harm to patients. The focus of the conference was oriented toward medication reconciliation for a hospitalized patient population; however, many of the themes and concepts derived would also apply to other care settings. This paper highlights the key domains needing to be addressed and suggests first steps toward doing so.An overarching principle derived at the conference is that medication reconciliation should not be viewed as an accreditation function. It must, first and foremost, be recognized as an important element of patient safety. From this principle, the participants identified ten key areas requiring further attention in order to move medication reconciliation toward this focus. 1There is need for a uniformly acceptable and accepted definition of what constitutes a medication and what processes are encompassed by reconciliation. Clarifying these terms is critical to ensuring more uniform impact of medication reconciliation.2The varying roles of the multidisciplinary participants in the reconciliation process must be clearly defined. These role definitions should include those of the patient and family/caregiver and must occur locally, taking into account the need for flexibility in design given the varying structures and resources at healthcare sites.3Measures of the reconciliation processes must be clinically meaningful (i.e., of defined benefit to the patient) and derived through consultation with stakeholder groups. Those measures to be reported for national benchmarking and accreditation should be limited in number and clinically meaningful.4While a comprehensive reconciliation system is needed across the continuum of care, a phased approach to implementation, allowing it to start slowly and be tailored to local organizational structures and work flows, will increase the chances of successful organizational uptake.5Developing mechanisms for prospectively and proactively identifying patients at risk for medication-related adverse events and failed reconciliation is needed. Such an alert system would help maintain vigilance toward these patient safety issues and help focus additional resources on high risk patients.6Given the diversity in medication reconciliation practices, research aimed at identifying effective processes is important and should be funded with national resources. Funding should include varying sites of care (e.g., urban and rural, academic and nonacademic, etc.).7Strategies for medication reconciliation—both successes and key lessons learned from unsuccessful efforts—should be widely disseminated.8A personal health record that is integrated and easily transferable between sites of care is needed to facilitate successful medication reconciliation.9Partnerships between healthcare organizations and community-based organizations create opportunities to reinforce medication safety principles outside the traditional clinician-patient relationship. Leveraging the influence of these organizations and other social networking platforms may augment population-based understanding of their importance and role in medication safety.10Aligning healthcare payment structures with medication safety goals is critical to ensure allocation of adequate resources to design and implement effective medication reconciliation processes.Medication reconciliation is complex and made more complicated by the disjointed nature of the American healthcare system. Addressing these ten points with an overarching goal of focusing on patient safety rather than accreditation should result in improvements in medication reconciliation and the health of patients. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2010. © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Download full-text


Available from: Jeffrey L Greenwald, Jul 07, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication reconciliation is a National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) from The Joint Commission (TJC) that entails reviewing all medications a patient takes after a health care transition. Medication reconciliation is a resource-intensive, error-prone task, and the resources to accomplish it may not be routinely available. Computer-based methods have the potential to overcome these barriers. We designed and explored a rule-based medication reconciliation algorithm to accomplish this task across different healthcare transitions. We tested our algorithm on a random sample of 94 transitions from the Clinical Data Warehouse at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We found that the algorithm reconciled, on average, 23.4% of the potentially reconcilable medications. Our study did not have sufficient statistical power to establish whether the kind of transition affects reconcilability. We conclude that automated reconciliation is possible and will help accomplish the NPSG.
    AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium 01/2011; 2011:1252-60.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication reconciliation is a process to reduce errors and harm associated with loss of medication information as the patient enters and moves through the healthcare system. This study examines medication list accuracy upon hospital admission. This prospective study enrolled 75 English-speaking medical and surgical patients (18 years of age or older) who were taking prescription medications. The study took place at a rural, tertiary teaching hospital in the northeastern United States. Data collection occurred from November 2006 to March 2009. Nursing admission team medication lists were reconciled with primary care physician (PCP) and outpatient pharmacy (OP) lists. Outcome measures were accuracy of medication history generated by admission nurses (ANs) compared with PCP and OP lists, and identification of factors influencing probability of accurate medication list generation by ANs. The Generalized Estimating Equations modeling approach was used to compare AN, OP, and PCP medication list accuracy. Additionally, sex and age were analyzed as covariates and included in the model. Forty-five males and 30 females (N= 75) with a mean age of 60 years (SD 15) participated. Fifty-seven subjects (76%) used over-the-counter or herbal medications, but the AN recorded only 31 (41%) cases. Patients received outpatient care from 1 to 12 providers. Forty patients (67%) obtained medications from one pharmacy, 22 (29%) from two, and 3 (4%) from three pharmacies. OP medication lists were completely accurate more often than PCP but not AN lists (19/75 [25%] OP vs. 6/75 [8%] PCP vs. 14/75 [19%] AN; 95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference [0.07, 0.50]). No difference between AN and PCP list accuracy was found. Completely accurate AN lists were more than twice as likely with male and younger patients (95% CI of the difference [1.07, 6.22] and [0.94, 0.99], respectively). Like other studies, this study showed admission medication reconciliation lists are often inaccurate. Our results suggest that verification of admission medication lists with outpatient provider lists may improve accuracy. Patients, with guidance from outpatient care providers, should assume accountability for maintaining accurate medication lists. A secure, universal, interactive electronic medical record may be a future solution for organizing and sharing medication data between providers. Medication reconciliation upon inpatient admission remains a high-volume and high-acuity problem. We found that not only hospital medication lists, but source lists, including those maintained by the patient, the PCP, and the OP, are vastly inaccurate.
    Journal of Nursing Scholarship 09/2011; 43(3):292-300. DOI:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01409.x · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the implementation of a system-wide, electronic medical record (EMR)-based quality improvement intervention targeting medication reconciliation (MedRec) in outpatient pediatrics and to test variables associated with the performance of MedRec. This was a retrospective study using serial cross-sections of outpatient pediatric visits over a 5-year period set in a multispecialty children's integrated health care network in Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. We reviewed 2 745 523 outpatient pediatric visits between 2005 and 2010. In 2007, the performance of MedRec was identified as critical to improving patient safety at our organization. A comprehensive intervention involved changes in the EMR, automated generation of medication lists, educational modules, and provider compliance reports. In 2009, quality-based financial incentives to physicians to perform MedRec were added. The outcome measure was documentation of MedRec performance. MedRec improved consistently over time, from a nadir of 0% in 2005 to a maximum of 71% in 2010. Performance of MedRec varied according to practice location as the intervention was rolled out. Throughout the study period, documentation of MedRec was consistently less likely for sick visits (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each year ranged from 0.44 to 0.68) but more likely if the provider placed a medication order during the visit (aOR: 1.70-2.15). Beginning in 2009, visits with providers eligible for the quality-based financial incentive were more likely to have had MedRec performed (aOR: 2.02 [2009] and 2.31 [2010]). A system-wide, EMR-based, outpatient pediatric quality improvement intervention was successful in improving documentation of the performance of MedRec, a national patient safety goal.
    PEDIATRICS 12/2011; 128(6):e1600-7. DOI:10.1542/peds.2011-0993 · 5.30 Impact Factor