Search

Background: Previous studies on medication therapy management services, e.g. medication reconciliation and medication review, do not show consistent improvements in patient’s health-related quality of life. However, these services can reduce adverse drug events. Aim: To evaluate the correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events/adverse drug events reported by patients. Method: Older patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy (≥ 5 medicines) admitted to orthopaedic or surgical wards were included. Patients were contacted post-discharge to evaluate patient-reported adverse events, health-related quality of life using the EuroQol questionnaire and self-perceived health status on a 5-point Likert scale. The outcomes were the correlation between health-related quality of life and the number of adverse events/adverse drug events, and potential predictors for these events. Spearman correlation and Poisson regression were used for data analysis. Results: 102 patients were included. The correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events was weak but significant (Spearman correlation coefficient: − 0.328, p = 0.001). No correlation was found for adverse drug events (− 0.064, p = 0.521). Self-perceived health status was a predictor for adverse events, not for adverse drug events. Health-related quality of life was neither a predictor for adverse events, nor for adverse drug events. Conclusion: The correlation between the number of patient-reported adverse events, adverse drug events and health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol was weak. There is a need for a questionnaire that includes the impact of medication use and is sensitive to outcomes that are affected by medication therapy management services.

Contains fulltext : 251158.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Insufficient information transfer is a major barrier in the transition from hospital to home. This study describes the systematic development and evaluation of an intervention to improve medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an intervention to improve the medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists based on patients', community and hospital pharmacists' needs. METHODS: The intervention development and evaluation was guided by the six-step Intervention Mapping (IM) approach: (1) needs assessment to identify determinants of the problem, with a scoping review and focus groups with patients and healthcare providers, (2) formulation of intervention objectives with an expert group, (3) inventory of communication models to design the intervention, (4) using literature review and qualitative research with pharmacists and patients to develop the intervention (5) pilot-testing of the intervention in two hospitals, and (6) a qualitative evaluation of the intervention as part of a multicenter before-after study with hospital and community pharmacists. RESULTS: Barriers in the information transfer are mainly time and content related. The intervention was designed to target a complete, accurate and timely medication information transfer between hospital and community pharmacists. A pharmaceutical discharge letter was developed to improve medication information transfer. Hospital and community pharmacists were positive about the usability, content, and comprehensiveness of the pharmaceutical discharge letter, which gave community pharmacists sufficient knowledge about in-hospital medication changes. However, hospital pharmacists reported that it was time-consuming to draft the discharge letter and not always feasible to send it on time. The intervention showed that pharmacists are positive about the usability, content and comprehensiveness. CONCLUSION: This study developed an intervention systematically to improve medication information transfer, consisting of a discharge letter to be used by hospital and community pharmacists supporting continuity of care.

Item does not contain fulltext Older people are often affected by impaired organ and bodily functions resulting in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, turning them into the main user group of many medicines. Very often, medicines have not specifically been developed for older people, causing practical medication problems for them like limited availability of easy to swallow formulations, easy to open packaging and dosing instructions for enteral administration. In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a reflection paper 'Pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population', which discusses how the emerging needs of an ageing European population can be addressed by medicines regulation. The paper intends to help industry to better consider the needs of older people during pharmaceutical/clinical medicines development by summarising data on the most relevant topics, providing early suggestions on how to move forward and prompting expert discussions and studies into knowledge gaps. Topics include patient acceptability, (dis)advantages of an administration route, formulation, dosage form, packaging, dosing device and user instruction. While the paper is directed at older people and the pharmaceutical industry, the reflections are also relevant to younger patients with similar disease-related needs and of value to other stakeholders parties, e.g., healthcare professionals, academics, patients and caregivers, as the paper makes clear what can be expected from industry and where collaborative work is needed. This commentary provides an overview of the different steps in the development of the reflection paper, discusses points considered most controversial and/or subject to (multidisciplinary) expert discussions and indicates their value for real world clinical practice.

Previous studies on medication therapy management services, e.g. medication reconciliation and medication review, do not show consistent improvements in patient's health-related quality of life. However, these services can reduce adverse drug events.To evaluate the correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events/adverse drug events reported by patients.Older patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy (≥ 5 medicines) admitted to orthopaedic or surgical wards were included. Patients were contacted post-discharge to evaluate patient-reported adverse events, health-related quality of life using the EuroQol questionnaire and self-perceived health status on a 5-point Likert scale. The outcomes were the correlation between health-related quality of life and the number of adverse events/adverse drug events, and potential predictors for these events. Spearman correlation and Poisson regression were used for data analysis.102 patients were included. The correlation between health-related quality of life and adverse events was weak but significant (Spearman correlation coefficient: - 0.328, p = 0.001). No correlation was found for adverse drug events (- 0.064, p = 0.521). Self-perceived health status was a predictor for adverse events, not for adverse drug events. Health-related quality of life was neither a predictor for adverse events, nor for adverse drug events.The correlation between the number of patient-reported adverse events, adverse drug events and health-related quality of life measured by the EuroQol was weak. There is a need for a questionnaire that includes the impact of medication use and is sensitive to outcomes that are affected by medication therapy management services.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy may result in medication-related readmissions (MRRs). Identifying MRRs is time consuming. Screening of readmissions by students could increase efficiency for healthcare professionals. Recently, two screening tools have been published: the Assessment Tool for identifying Hospital Admissions Related to Medications (AT-HARM10) tool and the Drug-Related Admission (DRA) adjudication guide. It is unknown whether pharmacy students could identify MRRs with these tools. OBJECTIVE: To compare the agreement between two pharmacy students applying the AT-HARM10 tool and DRA adjudication guide in identifying MRRs vs a multidisciplinary panel. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted from February to July 2020 at OLVG hospital. Readmissions within 30 days after discharge from seven departments were reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel (pharmacists and physicians). MRRs were defined as readmission where medication was the main cause or medication significantly contributed to the readmission. Two 5th year pharmacy-students volunteered to blindly apply both tools individually on all MRRs and a random sample of non-MRRs. The consensus results of the students and the multidisciplinary panel were compared and displayed as a percentage and Cohen's kappa (κ). RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six readmission cases were selected in total, consisting of 181 MRRs and 185 non-MRRs. The agreement between the students using the AT-HARM10 tool vs the multidisciplinary panel was moderate (80%, κ = 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.68)). The DRA adjudication guide had a moderate agreement (81%, κ = 0.62 (CI: 0.54-0.70)). Students misclassified MRRs mainly because the multidisciplinary panel found disease progression more profound than a contribution of medication. CONCLUSIONS: Two students have an overall agreement of 80% in comparison with the multidisciplinary panel with a moderate Cohen's kappa. Students are more often overestimated, but they may be a good option to preselect potential MRRs to save time for healthcare professionals. However, some MRRs will be missed.

Item does not contain fulltext Background In the Netherlands, a nationwide Medication Record System based on pharmacy dispensing data is used to obtain information about patients' actual medication use. However, it is not clear to what extent the information of the Nationwide Medication Record System corresponds to the medication information obtained with the Best Possible Medication History. Objective To examine the validity of medication dispensing records collected from the Nationwide Medication Record System by comparing them to the Best Possible Medication History. Method An observational study was performed. Patients from several hospital departments were included at admission. To obtain the Best Possible Medication History, pharmacy technicians performed medication reconciliation at admission, using dispensing records from the Nationwide Medication Record System and information from the patient himself. Primary outcome is percentage of patients with no discrepancies between the Nationwide Medication Record System and the Best Possible Medication History. Descriptive analysis was used. Results Eighty-two patients were approached and 66 (80%) were included, with in total 478 medicines in the Best Possible Medication History. Seventeen percent of the patients had no discrepancies and 33% (n = 156) of the medication records contained a discrepancy between the Nationwide Medication Record System and the Best Possible Medication History. Most common type of discrepancy was omission (44%). Conclusion Even with a Nationwide Medication Record System medication reconciliation with the patient remains essential to obtain complete information about patient's actual medication use.

Background: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used as a measure of healthcare quality. Medicines are the most common therapeutic intervention but estimating the contribution of adverse drug events as a cause of readmissions is difficult.Objectives: To assess the prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions within 30 days after hospital discharge and to describe the risk factors, type of medication errors and types of medication involved in these preventable readmissions.Design: A cross-sectional observational study.Setting: The study took place across the cardiology, gastroenterology, internal medicine, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology and general surgery departments in the OLVG teaching hospital, Netherlands.Participants: Patients with an unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from an earlier hospitalization (index hospitalization: IH) were reviewed.Measurements: The prevalence and preventability of medication-related readmissions were assessed by residents in multidisciplinary meetings. A senior internist and hospital pharmacist reassessed the prevalence and preventability of identified cases. Generalized estimating equation with logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors of potentially preventable medication-related readmissions.Results: Of 1,111 included readmissions, 181 (16%) were medication-related, of which 72 (40%) were potentially preventable. The number of medication changes at IH (Adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05–1.24) and having ≥3 hospitalizations 6 months before IH (ORadj: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.12–3.98) were risk factors of a preventable medication-related readmission. Of these preventable readmissions, 35% were due to prescribing errors, 35% by non-adherence and 30% by transition errors. Medications most frequently involved were diuretics and antidiabetics.Conclusion: This study shows that 16% of readmissions are medication-related, of which 40% are potentially preventable. If the results are confirmed in larger multicentre studies, this may indicate that more attention should be paid to medication-related harm in order to lower the overall readmission rates.

Background Drug-related problems after discharge are common among older adults with polypharmacy. Medication review during hospitalization has been proposed as one solution. Inpatient medication review is often based on clinical records only. An obstacle is the lack of insight into the outpatient history. Therefore, a geriatric stewardship was designed and involved an inpatient medication review by a hospital pharmacist and geriatrician based on (I) clinical records to draft initial recommendations, (II) consultations with primary care providers (general practitioner and community pharmacist) to discuss the hospital-based recommendations, (III) patient interviews to assess their needs, and (IV) a multidisciplinary evaluation of all previous steps to draft final recommendations. Objective To assess the effect of the geriatric stewardship on drug-related problems reported by patients after discharge. Setting General teaching hospital. Methods An implementation study (pre-post design) was performed. Orthopaedic and surgical patients (≥ 65 years) with polypharmacy and a frailty risk factor were included. The pre-group received usual care, the post-group received the geriatric stewardship intervention. Two weeks post-discharge, patient-reported drug-related problems were assessed using a validated questionnaire. Drug-related problems were classified into drug-related complaints, practical problems, and questions about medication. Outcomes The outcomes were the number and type of drug-related problems per patient (primary) and the number of initial recommendations that were altered due to primary care provider and patient input (secondary). Results In total, 127 patients were analysed (usual care n = 74, intervention n = 53). Intervention patients reported fewer drug-related problems compared to usual care: 2.8 versus 3.3 per patient (Adjusted relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.05). This difference resulted from a halving in drug-related complaints (p 0.05), for example pain, drowsiness, nausea or constipation. Nearly 30% of the initial recommendations based on the clinical records were discarded or modified after primary care provider consultations and patient interviews. Conclusion The geriatric stewardship did not significantly reduce drug-related problems, but it significantly halved drug-related complaints. One-in-three initial recommendations were altered due to primary care provider and patient input. Inpatient medication reviews should not be based on clinical records only; they require transmural collaboration and patient participation to ensure continuity of patient care.

Contains fulltext : 218225.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used as an indicator of quality in health care. One potential risk factor of readmissions is polypharmacy. No studies have explored the patients' perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the patients' perspectives on the medication relatedness and potential preventability of their readmissions with the providers' perspectives. METHODS: Patients unplanned readmitted within 30 days after discharge at one of the participating departments of OLVG Hospital in Amsterdam were interviewed during their readmission. Patients' perspectives regarding medication relatedness of their readmissions, the potential preventability, possible preventable interventions, and satisfaction with medication information were examined. Health-care providers also reviewed files of these readmitted patients. Primary outcome was the percentage of medication-related and potentially preventable readmissions according to the patient vs the provider. Descriptive data analysis was used. RESULTS: According to patients, 36 of 172 (21%) readmissions were medication-related, and of these, 21 (58%) were potentially preventable. According to providers, 26 (15%) readmissions were medication-related and 6 (23%) of these were potentially preventable. Patients and providers agreed on the medication relatedness in 11 of the 172 readmissions, and in two of these, agreement on the potential preventability existed. According to patients, preventive interventions belonged mostly to the hospital level, followed by the primary care level and patient level. CONCLUSION: Patients and providers differ substantially on their perspectives regarding the medication relatedness and preventability of readmissions. Patients were more likely to view medication-related readmissions as preventable.

Contains fulltext : 220997.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVES: To identify the preventability, determinants and causes of unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge using a multidisciplinary approach and including patients' perspectives. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional single-center study. SETTING: Urban teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 430 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, discharged from one of seven participating clinical departments and an unplanned readmission within 30 days. METHODS: Residents from the participating departments individually assessed whether the readmission was caused by healthcare, the preventability and possible causes of readmissions using a tool. Thereafter, the preventability of the cases was discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting with residents of all participating departments and clinical pharmacists. The primary outcome was the proportion of readmissions that were potentially preventable. Secondary outcomes were the determinants for a readmission, causes for preventable readmissions, the change in the final decision on preventability after the multidisciplinary meeting and the value of patient interviews in assessing preventability. Differences in characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) and non-PPRs were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 430 readmissions, 56 (13%) were assessed as PPRs. Age was significantly associated with a PPR (adjusted OR: 2.42; 95%, CI 1.23-4.74; p = 0.01). The main causes for PPRs were diagnostic (30%), medication (27%) and management problems (27%). During the multidisciplinary meeting, the final decision on preventability changed in 11% of the cases. When a patient interview was available, it was used as a source of information to assess preventability in 26% of readmissions. In 7% of cases, the patient interview was mentioned as the most important source. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: 13% of readmissions were potentially preventable with diagnostic, medication or management problems being main causes. A multidisciplinary review approach and including the patient's perspective could contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of readmissions and possible improvements.

Purpose The need for information for patients and caregivers at the point of hospital discharge is paramount and potentially extensive. Objective The objective of this study was to assess patients' informational needs at hospital discharge, patients' recall of medication changes implemented in the hospital and patients' medication related problems experienced one week after hospital discharge. Methods The study was conducted in a teaching hospital where patients received structured discharge counseling. Patients were interviewed at hospital discharge regarding their informational needs. One week post-discharge, patients were interviewed by phone to assess any changes in informational needs, their recall regarding in-hospital medication changes and the medication related problems. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were used to address study objectives. Results The 124 patients in the study regarded the following topics as most relevant for counseling: what the medicine is for (57%), side effects (52%), drug-drug interactions (45%), action of the drug (37%) and reimbursement (31%). In 9% of patients the informational needs changed post-discharge, e.g. the topic side effects increased in importance. Forty-nine percent could recall whether and which medication was changed during hospitalization. Medication-related problems and side effects were reported by respectively 27% and 15% of patients, whereas only 7% contacted their doctor or pharmacist. Conclusions Patients' informational needs are very individual and can change post-discharge. Despite structured counseling, only half of the patients were able to recall the medication changes implemented in the hospital. Furthermore, patients reported several problems for which they did not consult a healthcare provider. This insight could help in smoothing the transition from hospital to the primary care setting.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence on the prevalence and preventability of drug-related hospital readmissions. DESIGN: A systematic review was performed of studies that examined drug-related hospital readmissions. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through August 2016. Reference lists and a citation analysis on Web of Science and Scopus were also consulted. Two reviewers extracted study data with dual assessment of risk of bias. Prevalence and preventability of readmission due to drugs were calculated. Data were qualitatively summarized according to outcome. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Nine measured readmissions due to drug-related problems, seven due to adverse drug reactions, two due to adverse drug events, and one due to drug-drug interactions. Rates of readmissions due to drugs varied from 3% to 64% (median 21%, interquartile range (IQR) 14-23%). Readmissions were deemed preventable in 5% to 87% of cases (median 69%, IQR 19-84%). Evidence regarding the risk factors for drug-related readmissions and drugs causing these readmissions was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Although studies show high variability in prevalence and preventability of drug-related hospital readmissions, readmissions due to drugs seem to occur often, especially in older adults. Further research is needed to specify the causes of preventable readmissions and implement effective interventions to reduce medication-related hospital admissions.

Patients play an important role in achieving the desired therapeutic outcomes, as they are frequently responsible for their own medication management. To facilitate drug administration and overcome medication issues, the patients’ needs and preferences should be considered in the pharmaceutical drug product design. With the aim to evaluate the current state of evidence for patient appropriateness, acceptability, usability and preference for aspects of this design, a literature search was performed. Comparative clinical studies that assessed such endpoints for different patient populations were included and summarized descriptively. The search identified 45 publications that met the inclusion criteria. A detailed analysis of the studies identified two main areas investigating either packaging design ( n = 10) or dosage form design ( n = 35). Studies on packaging design showed preferences for wing top and screw cap openings, push-through blisters and suppositories with slide system. Additionally, child-resistant containers should be avoided concerning specific patient populations. Regarding dosage form design, sprinkles and minitablets were the most preferred in studies involving young patients, while preferences varied considerably depending on route of administration and geographical region in studies with adult patients. Review of the methodology used in the studies revealed that ten studies had used well-defined protocols and observational endpoints to investigate patient appropriateness. Studies focusing on methodology for testing the appropriateness and usability of drug products by patients were not found. In conclusion, more interdisciplinary scientific efforts are required to develop and increase research in understanding patient needs and preferences.

Background Medication reconciliation (MR) is a widely recognised method to promote patient safety. However, its implementation is generally limited to an interaction at a single transition point. Objectives To examine the rates and types of changes implemented in patient's medication regimens when MR is performed longitudinally at hospital admission, discharge and post-discharge, and to assess the clinical impact. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in two hospitals. Patients received MR at admission, discharge and within five days post-discharge at home. Data was collected on rates and types of changes implemented in their medication regimens, due to MR, at all three transition points. These changes entailed corrections of unintentional discrepancies, e.g., between patients’ actual medication use and physician prescriptions, and optimisations of pharmacotherapy, e.g., adding laxatives when opioids are prescribed. Using a validated instrument, the clinical impact of all medication changes were scored. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results In total, 197 patients with a median age of 73 years were included. In 86.3% of patients at least one change was implemented in the medication regimen due to longitudinal MR. At admission, discharge and post-discharge, changes in medication regimens were necessary in 66.5%, 62.9% and 52.8% of patients, respectively. At admission and post-discharge, mainly unintentional discrepancies were corrected, and at discharge mainly optimisations were implemented. Implemented medication changes, due to longitudinal MR, prevented potential harm in 161 patients (81.7%). Potentially serious medication errors were most often prevented at hospital discharge, and predominantly involved optimising antithrombotic agents. Conclusions Changes in medication regimens were implemented in 86.3% of patients due to longitudinal MR at admission, discharge and post-discharge. The rates and types of medication changes vary over time. Hospital discharge is an important moment for optimising pharmacotherapy.

AIMS: Medication safety requires urgent attention in hospital pharmacy. This study evaluated the medication-related problems/errors as reported to the Dutch medication incident registry and disseminated for information to pharmacists. Through analysis by an expert panel we aimed to better understand which problems could have been mitigated by the drug product design. Additionally, the (wider) implications of the problems for current hospital/clinical practice were discussed.METHODS: Items were extracted from the public Portal for Patient Safety. Items were included if relevant for older people and connected with the drug product design and excluded if they should reasonably have been intercepted by compliance to routine controls or well-known professional standards in pharmaceutical care. To explore any underreporting of well-known incidents, it was investigated if different medication-related problems could be observed in a regional hospital practise over a 1-month period. For 6 included items (cases), the implications for hospital/clinical practise were discussed in an expert panel.RESULTS: In total, 307 items were identified in the Portal for Patient Safety; all but 14 were excluded. Six cases were added from daily hospital practice. These 20 cases commonly related to confusing product characteristics, packaging issues such as the lack of a single unit package for an oncolytic product, or incorrect or incomplete user instructions.CONCLUSION: Medication registries provide important opportunities to evaluate real-world medication-related problems. However, underreporting of well-known problems should be considered. The product design can be used as an (additional) risk mitigation measure to support medication safety in hospital practice.

Background A main obstacle of inpatient medication review is the lack of insight into patient needs and the outpatient’s medical history. Purpose To establish whether drug-related problems (DRPs) after discharge can be reduced via geriatric stewardship, which entails inpatient medication reviews based on patient interviews and consultations with primary care providers. Material and methods This implementation study with a pre-post design included hospitalised elderly patients with polypharmacy and a risk factor for frailty who were admitted to orthopaedic or surgical wards. The pre-cohort received the usual care; and the after-cohort received an extended medication review based on: 1) a review of the clinical records; 2) a consultation with the general practitioner and community pharmacist; 3) a patient interview; and 4) a multidisciplinary evaluation of all the recommendations of steps 1 to 3. Two weeks after discharge, patient-reported DRPs were assessed by telephone using a validated questionnaire. DRPs (i.e. an event or circumstance involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interferes with desired health outcomes) were classified into drug-related complaints, practical problems and questions about medication. The primary outcome was the number of DRPs per patient in each group. A Poisson regression was performed to compare the groups, adjusted for potential confounders. Second, we assessed the number of altered recommendations by patient interviews and consultations of primary care providers. Results Of 127 included patients (control: 74, intervention: 53), intervention patients reported fewer DRPs after discharge than patients in usual care, 2.8 vs. 3.3 per patient (RRadjusted 0.83, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.05). The difference was mainly due to a 50% reduction in drug-related complaints. In the intervention group, nearly 30% of the medication review recommendations based on the clinical records changed after consulting the patient and primary care providers. Conclusion The implementation of geriatric stewardship reduced DRPs after discharge in this cohort. Significance was not reached but further research with larger patient numbers may confirm this effect and determine the effect on clinical outcomes. The importance of patient interviews is consistent with the findings of Viktil et al1 on the value of patient interviews in an inpatient setting. No previous study considered consultations of primary care providers. References and/or acknowledgements 1. Viktil, et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2006;15:667–74. No conflict of interest.

BackgroundHospital admissions are a risk factor for the occurrence of unintended medication discrepancies between drugs used before admission and after discharge. To diminish such discrepancies and improve quality of care, medication reconciliation has been developed. The exact contribution of patient counseling to the medication reconciliation process is unknown, especially not when compared with community pharmacy medication records, which are considered reliable in the Netherlands.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of medication reconciliation with and without patient counseling among patients at the time of hospital discharge on the number and type of interventions aimed at preventing drug-related problems.MethodsA prospective observational study in a general teaching hospital was performed. Patients discharged from the pulmonology department were included. A pharmacy team assessed the interventions with and without patient counseling on discharge medications for each patient.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-two patients were included. Medication reconciliation without patient counseling was responsible for at least one intervention in 87% of patients (mean 2.7 interventions/patient). After patient counseling, at least one intervention (mean 5.3 interventions/patient) was performed in 97% of patients. After patient counseling, discharge prescriptions were frequently adjusted due to discrepancies in use or need of drug therapy. Most interventions led to the start of medication due to omission and dose changes due to incorrect dosages being prescribed. Patients also addressed their problems/concerns with use of the drug, which were discussed before discharge.ConclusionsSignificantly more interventions were identified after patient counseling. Therefore, patient information is essential in medication reconciliation.

Background Communication and documentation of medication-related information are needed to improve continuity of care. Objective To assess the completeness of medication-related information in discharge letters and post-discharge general practitioner (GP)-overviews. Setting A general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Method An observational study was performed. Patients from several departments were included after medication reconciliation at hospital discharge. In liaison with the resident and patient, a pharmacy team prepared a Transitional Pharmaceutical Care (TPC)-overview of current medications, including changes and allergies. The resident was instructed to download the TPC-overview into the discharge letter instead of typing a self-made medication list. Medication overviews were gathered from the GP 2 weeks after the handover of the discharge letter. The TPC-overview (gold standard) was compared with the information in the discharge letter and post-discharge GP-overviews regarding correct medications and allergies. Descriptive data analysis was used. Main outcome measure The number and percentage of complete medication-related information in the discharge letter and the GP-overview were compared to the TPC-overview. Results Ninety-nine patients were included. Medication-related information was complete in 62 (63 %) of 99 discharge letters. Sixteen of 99 GP-overviews (16 %) were complete. Communication of medication-related information increased documentation by the GP, but the medication history could still be incomplete, mainly regarding medication changes and allergies. Conclusions Medication-related information is lost in discharge letters and GP-overviews post-discharge despite in-hospital medication reconciliation. This could result in discontinuity of care.

Background Medication errors occur frequently at points of transition in care. The key problems causing these medication errors are: incomplete and inappropriate medication reconciliation at hospital discharge (partly arising from inadequate medication reconciliation at admission), insufficient patient information (especially within a multicultural patient population) and insufficient communication to the next health care provider. Whether interventions aimed at the combination of these aspects indeed result in less discontinuity and associated harm is uncertain. Therefore the main objective of this study is to determine the effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in patients discharged from the internal medicine department. Methods/Design An experimental study is performed at the internal medicine ward of a general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, which serves a multicultural population. In this study the effects of the COACH program is compared with usual care using a pre-post study design. All patients being admitted with at least one prescribed drug intended for chronic use are included in the study unless they meet one of the following exclusion criteria: no informed consent, no medication intended for chronic use prescribed at discharge, death, transfer to another ward or hospital, discharge within 24 hours or out of office hours, discharge to a nursing home and no possibility to counsel the patient. The intervention consists of medication reconciliation, patient counselling and communication between the hospital and primary care healthcare providers. The following outcomes are measured: the primary outcome readmissions within six months after discharge and the secondary outcomes number of interventions, adherence, patient's attitude towards medicines, patient's satisfaction with medication information, costs, quality of life and finally satisfaction of general practitioners and community pharmacists. Interrupted time series analysis is used for data-analysis of the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics is performed for the secondary outcomes. An economic evaluation is performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion This study will be able to evaluate the clinical and cost impact of a comprehensive program on continuity of care and associated patient safety. Trial registration Dutch trial register: NTR1519