RESUMEN

Inaccurate or missing medication information in medical discharge summaries is a widespread and intractable problem. This study evaluated the effectiveness and sustainability of an intervention in which ward-based hospital pharmacists reviewed, contributed and verified medication information in electronic discharge summaries (EDSs) in collaboration with physicians. Retrospective audits of randomly selected EDSs were conducted on seven wards at a major public hospital before and after implementation of the intervention and repeated two years later on four wards where the intervention was incorporated into usual pharmacist care. EDSs for 265 patients (prescribed a median of nine discharge medications) were assessed across the three time points. Pharmacists verified the EDSs for 47% patients in the first post-intervention audit and 68% patients in the second post-intervention audit. Following the intervention, the proportion of patients with one or more clinically significant discharge medication list discrepancy fell from 40/93 (43%) to 14/92 (15%), p < 0.001. The proportion of clinically significant medication changes stated in the EDSs increased from 222/417 (53%) to 296/366 (81%), p < 0.001, and the proportion both stated and explained increased from 206/417 (49%) to 245/366 (67%), p < 0.001. Significant improvements were still evident after two years. Pharmacists spent a median of 5 (range 2-16) minutes per patient contributing to EDSs. Logistics, timing and pharmacist workload were barriers to delivering the intervention. Additional staff resources is needed to enable pharmacists to consistently deliver this effective intervention.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Poor communication of medication information to general practitioners when patients are discharged from hospital is a widely recognised problem. There has been little research exploring the accuracy of medication information in electronic discharge summaries (EDS) linked to hospital e-prescribing systems. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of medication lists and medication change information in EDS produced using an integrated e-prescribing and EDS system (where EDS discharge medication lists were imported from discharge e-prescription records, medication change information was manually entered, and medications were dispensed from paper copies of the patients' e-prescriptions). METHOD: Retrospective audit of EDSs for a random sample, representative of adult patients ( n = 87) discharged from a major teaching hospital. EDS medication lists were compared to pharmacist-verified paper discharge prescriptions (considered to be the most accurate discharge medication list) to identify discrepancies. EDS medication change information was compared to medication changes identified by comparing pharmacist-verified "Medication History on Admission" forms with pharmacist-verified paper discharge prescriptions. RESULTS: There were 85/87 (98%) EDSs that included a discharge medication list. Of these, 50/85 (59%) contained one or more medication list discrepancies (median 1, range 0-15). The most common discrepancy was omission of medication (58%); 84/131 (64%) discrepancies were considered clinically significant (risk of adverse outcome); 162/351 (46%) clinically significant medication changes were stated in the EDS; and 153/351 (44%) changes were both stated and included a reason. CONCLUSION: EDS discrepancies were common despite integration with e-prescribing. Eliminating paper prescriptions, enhancing e-prescribing/EDS functionality and involving pharmacists in EDS preparation may reduce discrepancies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes associated with falls clinic programs. DESIGN: Longitudinal. SETTING: Thirteen outpatient falls clinics in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred fifty-four people referred for clinic assessment (mean age+/-standard deviation 77.9+/-8.8; 73% female). INTERVENTION: After assessment, multifactorial interventions were organized to address identified risk factors. MEASUREMENTS: A Minimum Data Set was developed and used across all clinics to derive common data on falls, falls injuries, and secondary measures associated with falls risk, including balance, falls efficacy, gait, leg strength, function, and activity. All measures were repeated 6 months later. RESULTS: Clients had a high risk of falls, with 78% having had falls in the preceding 6 months (63% multiple fallers, 10% experiencing fractures from the falls). An average of 7.6+/-2.8 falls risk factors were identified per client. The clinic team organized an average of 5.7+/-2.3 new or additional interventions per client. Sixty-one percent of eligible clients returned for the 6-month assessment. At this time, there was more than a 50% reduction in falls, multiple falls, and fall injuries (P < or = .004) and small but significant improvements evident on secondary measures of balance, leg strength, gait speed, and confidence outcomes (P < .006). Average adherence to recommendations was 74.3%. Factors associated with higher adherence included being male, younger than 65, living with others, and having a caregiver (P < .05). CONCLUSION: This large multicenter study identified high falls risk of older people referred to falls clinics, the multifactorial nature of their presenting problems and provides preliminary evidence of positive outcomes after falls clinic management.

Asunto(s)