Search

Objective We conducted this scoping review to map and summarize scientific evidence on the role of clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer. Data Sources A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and BVS/BIREME for studies published until November 22nd, 2020. Studies that reported work experiences adopted by clinical pharmacists in the palliative care of adults and elderly patients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the third and fourth authors. The pharmacist interventions identified in the included studies were described based on key domains in the DEPICT v.2. Data Summary A total of 586 records were identified, of which 14 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Most of them were conducted in the United States of America (n = 5) and Canada (n = 5) and described the workplace of the pharmacist in clinic/ambulatory (n = 10). Clinical pharmacists performed several activities and provided services, highlighting medication review (n = 12), patient and caregivers education (n = 12), medication histories and-or medication reconciliation (n = 6). The pharmacist interventions were mostly conducted for patients/caregivers (n = 13), by one-on-one contact (n = 14), and by face-to-face (n = 13). Pharmacists were responsible mainly for change or suggestion for change in therapy (n = 12) and patient counselling (n = 12). Pharmacist interventions were well accepted by the clinical team. Overall, studies showed that pharmacists, within an interdisciplinary team, had significant impacts on measured outcomes. Conclusions In recent years, there have been advances in the role of the pharmacist in palliative care of patients with cancer and there are great opportunities in this field. They play an important role in managing cancer pain and other symptoms, as well as resolving drug related problems. We encourage more research to be carried out to strengthen this field and to benefit patients with advanced cancer with higher quality of life.

Background Medication safety issues have detrimental implications on long-term outcomes in the high-risk kidney transplant (KTX) population. Medication errors, adverse drug events, and medication nonadherence are important and modifiable mechanisms of graft loss. Objective To describe the frequency and types of interventions made during a pharmacist-led, mobile health–based intervention in KTX recipients and the impact on patient risk levels. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data collected during a 12-month, parallel-arm, 1:1 randomized clinical controlled trial including 136 KTX recipients. Participants were randomized to receive either usual care or supplemental, pharmacist-driven medication therapy monitoring and management using a smartphone-enabled app integrated with telemonitoring of blood pressure and glucose (when applicable) and risk-based televisits. The primary outcome was pharmacist intervention type. Secondary outcomes included frequency of interventions and changes in risk levels. Results A total of 68 patients were randomized to the intervention and included in this analysis. The mean age at baseline was 50.2 years; 51.5% of participants were male, and 58.8% were black. Primary pharmacist intervention types were medication reconciliation and patient education, followed by medication changes. Medication reconciliation remained high throughout the study period, whereas education and medication changes trended downward. From baseline to month 12, we observed an approximately 15% decrease in high-risk patients and a corresponding 15% increase in medium- or low-risk patients. Conclusion and Relevance A pharmacist-led mHealth intervention may enhance opportunities for pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions and mitigate risk levels in KTX recipients.

Objectives This operational study aims to investigate the barriers in communicating medication changes at hospital discharge, and to inform design requirements of the CancelRx functionality to better support the communication. Methods We conducted seven semi-structured interviews with inpatient prescribers at an urban academic medical center. The interview protocol was framed from a human factors perspective, specifically the work system design approach. We took notes of the interviews and identified the initial themes of system barriers that may impact patient safety. Results Medication changes need to be communicated to multiple stakeholders. We identified two initial themes of the system barriers: the lack of an information flow that connects all the involved stakeholders, and the difficulties to communicate key pieces of information. We identified three key pieces of information that are difficult to communicate: the discontinuation reasons, the notification urgency, and the duration of changes. Conclusions While the CancelRx functionality can facilitate the communication (e.g. prescribers no longer need to call pharmacists when a medication is discontinued), enhancements are needed to address the system barriers. We proposed enhanced design requirements of the CancelRx functionality, e.g., to allow users to specify a reason for a medication discontinuation and transmit the reasons to other stakeholders, to indicate the urgency of notification, to specify the duration of a change, and to receive system status feedback .

Background: Pharmacists ability to directly impact patient satisfaction through increases in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys utilizing transitions-of-care (TOC) services is unclear. Methods: Retrospective analysis of TOC patients from 07/01/2018 to 03/31/2019 was conducted. Intervention (INV) patients received pharmacist medication reconciliation and education prior to discharge and post-discharge telephone follow-up. All other patients served as control group (CON). Primary outcome: Evaluate impact of TOC services on HCAHPS scores for “Communication about Medicines” and “Care Transitions.” Secondary outcomes: 30-day readmissions, quantification of prevented potential safety events, assessment of discharge prescriptions sent to the academic medical center outpatient pharmacy (MOP) for TOC patients. Results: Of 1,728 patients screened, 414 patients met inclusion criteria (INV = 414, CON = 1314). A significant improvement (14.7%; p = Conclusions: Pharmacy-based TOC models can improve patient satisfaction, prevent hospital readmissions, and generate revenue.

Background: Current literature suggests that patients with psychiatric disorders are at an increased risk for inpatient readmission. This study evaluated the impact of pharmacist-driven discharge medication reconcilliation (DMR) on readmission rates of patients discharged with one or more psychotropic medications. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of patients receiving a pharmacist-driven DMR. The primary outcome was to compare the prevalence of 30-day readmission rates among patients who had a pharmacist DMR between patients who had at least one psychotropic medication upon discharge versus those without psychotropic medications. Secondary objectives were to (1) compare the number of medication discrepancies and pharmacist interventions prior to discharge and (2) compare prevalence of medical comorbidities between patients who had at least one psychotropic medication upon discharge versus those without psychotropic medications. Results: A total of 151 subjects were included who had a DMR and either at least one psychotropic medication at discharge (n = 69) or no psychotropic medications at discharge (n = 82). The 30-day readmission rates were similar between both groups ( P = .609). The mean number of discrepancies ( P < .001) and number of pharmacist interventions ( P = .005) were significantly greater in patients who had at least one psychotropic medication upon discharge compared to those without psychotropic medication. Conclusions: The prevalence of 30-day readmissions was similar between the two groups; however, patients discharged with at least one psychotropic medication had a greater number of discrepancies requiring significantly more discharge interventions during a pharmacist DMR.

Background: Heart failure (HF) transition of care (TOC) programs may improve continuity of care and coordination and decrease hospital readmissions. Objective: This study evaluated the impact of pharmacy-led HF TOC on HF readmission rate. Methods: This was a single-center, pre-post quasi-experimental study. Pharmacy TOC comprised admission and discharge medication reconciliations and patient education. Patients were included if they had a primary HF diagnosis. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for a non-HF diagnosis, admitted for

Purpose: The development and implementation of a pharmacy technician medication history program, current experience with the program, and control elements are described. Summary: A pharmacy technician medication history program was developed and implemented at a large community teaching hospital at the recommendation of a system-wide interdisciplinary medication reconciliation core team to improve the current process. Important initial steps included creation of a high-level plan for program rollout, determination of program scope and design, evaluation of staffing and workspace needs, and identification of training requirements. Development of a data collection plan for the analysis of process and outcomes measures was established to support program continuation and expansion. At the pharmacy level, regularly scheduled meetings were held to gather feedback and implement changes as the program expanded in services and scope. Educational materials were revised and additional resources created to maintain consistency with technician education. Incorporation of control elements such as monthly review of process measure data, biannual accuracy validation, and annual competency assessment helped affirm program sustainability. Throughout program implementation, the importance of using an interdisciplinary approach and establishing strong interprofessional relationships were identified as key elements for continued success. Conclusion: A successful medication history program utilizing pharmacy technicians to gather medication information can be implemented and maintained through the use of standardized training documents, regularly scheduled meetings for feedback and education, and continued interdisciplinary collaboration.

Objective: To explore cognitive strategies clinicians apply while performing a medication reconciliation task, handling incomplete and conflicting information. Background: Medication reconciliation is a method clinicians apply to find and resolve inconsistencies in patients’ medications and medical conditions lists. The cognitive strategies clinicians use during reconciliation are unclear. Controlled lab experiments can explore how clinicians make sense of uncertain, missing, or conflicting information and therefore support the development of a human performance model. We hypothesize that clinicians apply varied cognitive strategies to handle this task and that profession and experience affect these strategies. Method: 130 clinicians participated in a tablet-based experiment conducted in a large American teaching hospital. They were asked to simulate medication reconciliation using a card sorting task (CaST) to organize medication and medical condition lists of a specific clinical case. Later on, they were presented with new information and were asked to add it to their arrangements. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed the ways clinicians arranged patient information. Results: Four distinct cognitive strategies were identified (“Conditions first”: n = 76 clinicians, “Medications first”: n = 7, “Crossover”: n = 17, and “Alternating”: n = 10). The strategy clinicians applied was affected by their experience ( p = .02) but not by their profession. At the appearance of new information, clinicians moved medication cards more frequently (75.2 movements vs. 49.6 movements, p < .001), suggesting that they match medications to medical conditions. Conclusion: Clinicians apply various cognitive strategies while reconciling medications and medical conditions. Application: Clinical information systems should support multiple cognitive strategies, allowing flexibility in organizing information.

Background: Previous studies demonstrated that transitions of care bundles, which include bedside discharge medication delivery (BDMD), may be helpful in decreasing hospital readmissions. Objective: To evaluate the effects of BDMD alone on day 30 readmission rates. Methods: Retrospective, cohort study comparing those who received pharmacy-driven BDMD to usual discharge. Primary outcome was day 30 readmission rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to account for baseline differences between groups. Results: A total of 30916 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of those, 2253 (7%) received BDMD and 28663 (93%) received usual care. Significant differences in age, distance from hospital, race, marital status, insurance type, previous hospitalizations, admission source, baseline comorbidities, and medication counts were observed between groups. Patients who received BDMD were less likely to have day 30 readmissions (10.6% vs 12.8%, P = .002). However, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, BDMD was not an independent predictor of day 30 readmission (adjusted odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.79-1.04, P = .17). BDMD was associated with decreased day 14 readmissions in an unadjusted analysis. Conclusions: BDMD was not independently associated with a reduction in day 30 readmissions. Future studies should focus on targeting patients who are most likely to benefit from this service.

Background: Although critically ill adults often have extended hospital lengths of stay and are at high risk of having medication-related adverse events, the value of medication histories in these patients remains underreported. Objective: To assess the feasibility of performing medication histories in critically ill adults and to establish the frequency of and characterize identified discrepancies. Methods: This prospective study included patients admitted to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in a large academic medical center and was conducted in 2 phases. In phase 1, medication histories were conducted over a 5-week period by clinical pharmacists to assess feasibility. In phase 2, medication histories were conducted over a 3-week period by a pharmacy technician. Medication discrepancies, defined as any difference between the documented and pharmacy personnel–identified home medication list, were aggregated in both phases and adjudicated for severity. Results: In phase 1, 127 medication histories were completed (42.3% of admitted patients). Impaired cognition was the most common barrier encountered; however, 76% of patients were able to have a history completed if an attempt was made. In phase 2, a medication history was completed for 176 patients (58.9% of admitted patients). In aggregate, 1155 discrepancies were identified, with 78.2% of patients having a discrepancy. The median number of discrepancies per patient was 3 (interquartile range = 1-5); 11 life-threatening, 101 serious, and 326 significant discrepancies were identified. Conclusion and Relevance: A pharmacy personnel–based medication history program in the ICU is feasible and assists in the discovery of medication discrepancies with the potential for patient harm.

Background: Medication changes are common after hospitalizations, and medication reconciliations are one tool to help identify potential medication discrepancies. Objective: To determine the impact of a pharmacy-driven medication reconciliation service on number of medication discrepancies identified. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort, chart-review study conducted at an internal medicine outpatient clinic. Patients at least 18 years of age were eligible for inclusion if they presented for a hospital follow-up appointment within 14 days of discharge between September 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016, from a system hospital. The 2 cohorts were patients with a pharmacist-completed medication reconciliation note written in the electronic health record on the date of their hospital follow-up appointment and those without. The primary outcome was number of medication discrepancies identified during medication reconciliation. Secondary outcomes included types of discrepancies, 30-day hospital readmission, and 30-day emergency department visits. This study was approved by the facility institutional review board. Results: Seventy-nine patients were included, and 38 patients had a pharmacist-completed medication reconciliation (48%). A total of 64 medication discrepancies were identified in 26 patients; of these, 49 discrepancies were resolved during the appointment (77%). There was an average of 2.46 medication discrepancies (±2.34) per patient. The most common discrepancy was missing medications. Thirty-day readmission rate was 5.3% in the intervention group and 19.5% in the control group ( P = .054). Conclusions: A pharmacist-completed medication reconciliation identified many medication discrepancies that were then resolved. From this study, pharmacist-led medication reconciliations following hospital discharge appear valuable.

Background: There is a lack of published literature that measures the impact of transitional care pharmacist (TCP) medication-related interventions within the skilled nursing facility (SNF) setting. Objectives To evaluate the impact of TCP medication-related interventions on 30-day hospital readmissions among SNF patients compared to current standard of care. Methods: This was a retrospective pilot study. All patients included in the study were discharged from an inpatient facility to a SNF. The control group received transitional services from a care team with no pharmacist. The intervention group received transitional services from a care team plus a pharmacist. Results: The 30-day readmission rates in the intervention group were 14 (12%)/116 compared to the control group, 19 (16%)/116; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( P = .35). The median time to readmission was statistically significantly longer in the intervention group, 17.5 days, compared to the control group, 10 days ( P = .02). One hundred seventy-four medication-related interventions were performed in the intervention group during the study period. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that TCP interventions in an SNF are associated with a significant delay in readmission. A continuation of the pilot program may show a role in reducing all-cause 30-day readmission and ED visit rates.

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a mission-critical process which can serve to reduce adverse drug events (ADEs) in surgical settings. However, providing quality care is limited by current health information technology (IT), which is often inefficient and unintuitive due to poor usability, resulting in high cognitive burden. We have been characterizing EHR mediated workflow in the Mayo Clinic enterprise prior to a system-wide electronic health records (EHR) conversion in order to harmonize workflows. We compared and evaluated MedRec processes in pre-operative nursing assessments across two different EHRs in place in different locales at baseline. The interfaces differed both in their modes of interaction and cognitive support. Analyses surfaced interface elements that were unintuitive and inefficient, creating unnecessary complexities in clinicians’ interactive behavior. Keystroke level models (KLM), a modeling tool for predicting task completion time, showed that to access medication lists required a different series of operations across the two systems. Different designs can differentially mediate task performance, which can aid in the mitigation of errors for complex cognitive tasks. Identification of barriers in EHR-mediated workflow and barriers to interface usability could lead to system redesigns that minimize cognitive load while improving patient safety and efficiency.

Hospital readmissions remain a public health concern despite progress in reducing and preventing its occurrence. Among strategies that have been implemented to reduce readmission most involves medication management. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions involving pharmacists to reduce hospital readmissions. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for primary literature from January 1990 to July 2016 with search terms such as “hospital readmission,” and “Pharmacist,” or “Pharmacy,” or “medications.” Studies with an abstract in English which highlighted a pharmacist involvement based on the type of intervention, country of origin, type of study, and findings were summarized. The outcomes of these interventions to reduce hospital readmissions were mixed. Of the 29 studies, 16 (55%) showed a statistically significant reduction in readmissions ranging from 3.3% to 30%. Most of the interventions focused mainly on patient education postdischarge (8) or in addition to medication reconciliation predischarge (9). There were no studies from Africa or Asia but mainly from the United States (72%). Although multiple factors contribute to hospital readmission, this review highlights the important role pharmacists can play singularly and as part of interdisciplinary teams. Most effective interventions often involved medication review and patient education postdischarge.

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.

Purpose: To evaluate whether a pharmacist-initiated electronic handoff tool can reduce the overall, and potentially inappropriate, hospital discharge prescribing rate of atypical antipsychotics (AAP) initiated in AAP-naive critically ill adults. Methods: This pre–post quality improvement study was initiated in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) at a large academic medical center. An electronic handoff tool (iVent) was utilized in the post-intervention period to enhance pharmacist communication at inpatient transitions of care. Results: Of the 358 included patients, the proportion of hospital survivors with an AAP initiated in the ICU receiving a hospital discharge prescription was not different between the pre- and post-intervention period (28.6% vs 22.2%, P = .12). The proportion of ICU survivors with an AAP continued at the time of ICU transfer to the floor was reduced post-intervention (78.7% vs 66.7%, P = .012). Additionally, the overall proportion of a patient’s hospitalization receiving an AAP was also reduced (50.4% vs 42.8%, P = .008). A multivariate logistic regression demonstrated thatutilization of the electronic handoff tool was not associated with a reduction in hospital discharge prescribing of an AAP (odds ratio [OR]: 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.65). Conclusions: A pharmacy-initiated electronic handoff tool may reduce the proportion of AAP-naive ICU survivors with an AAP continued at the time of ICU transfer. The handoff tool was not associated with a significant reduction in the discharge prescribing rates of AAPs for hospital survivors, but a clinically meaningful reduction was possibly achieved due to enhanced communication enabled by this tool.

Background: Many studies have shown the positive impact that student pharmacists have on patients’ health; however, no studies have been published evaluating student pharmacists’ impact on direct patient outcomes (ie, readmission, emergency department [ED] visits, length of stay) related to the medication history process. Objective: To evaluate the impact of student pharmacist–obtained medication histories on identification of medication discrepancies and clinical outcomes. Methods: Student pharmacists obtained medication histories and then compared the history to that obtained by other health-care providers. Students documented discrepancies and interventions were completed. Control patients were identified and discharge medication list and 30-day readmissions were compared. Results: Seventeen students conducted 215 patient interviews, and 1848 modifications were made to documented home medications in the electronic medical record. Compared to controls (n = 148 student pharmacist, 149 controls), a nonsignificant improvement was found in discharge medication list completeness scores in patients seen by student pharmacists (3.94 vs 3.63; P = .06); but no difference was found in accuracy scores (0.92 vs 0.93; P = .41). Fewer ED visits at 30 days were found in the student pharmacist group (8 vs 18; P = .045), with no difference in readmissions. Conclusions: Student pharmacist–obtained medication histories improved the information available for identifying drug-related problems for inpatients, completeness of the discharge medication list, and ED visits within 30 days.

Background: Accurate history collection is integral to medication reconciliation. Studies support pharmacy involvement in the process, but assessment of global time spent is limited. The authors hypothesized the location of a medication-focused interview would impact time spent. Methods: The objective was to compare time spent by pharmacists and nurses based on the location of a medication-focused interview. Time spent by the interviewing pharmacist, admitting nurse, and centralized pharmacist verifying admission orders was collected. Patient groups were based on whether the interview was conducted in the emergency department (ED) or medical floor. The primary end point was a composite of the 3 time points. Secondary end points were individual time components and number and types of transcription discrepancies identified during medical floor interviews. Results: Pharmacists and nurses spent an average of ten fewer minutes per ED patient versus a medical floor patient ( P = .028). Secondary end points were not statistically significant. Transcription discrepancies were identified at a rate of 1 in 4 medications. Post hoc analysis revealed the time spent by pharmacists and nurses was 2.4 minutes shorter per medication when interviewed in the ED ( P < .001). Discussion: The primary outcome was statistically and clinically significant. Limitations included inability to blind and lack of cost-saving analysis. Conclusion: Pharmacist involvement in ED medication reconciliation leads to time savings during the admission process.

Objective: A literature review was conducted to examine how pharmacy students and technicians have been utilized in medication reconciliation processes in an effort to evaluate expanded roles for pharmacy students and technicians. Data were summarized on accuracy of obtaining medication histories, time requirements, discrepancy identification, and cost savings. Limitations and areas for future research also were identified. Data Sources: A search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO and a manual searching of bibliographies were performed. Study Selection: Articles were included in this literature review if they focused on medication reconciliation with pharmacy student or technician outcomes independent of pharmacist involvement, they are available in English from any country, and the outcomes were empirical. Data Synthesis: Of 2112 identified studies, 32 met the inclusion criteria. The literature review revealed pharmacy technicians or students were involved in several medication reconciliation activities. Trained pharmacy students and technicians were able to obtain thorough medication histories as well as identify medication history discrepancies and take appropriate action to correct these discrepancies. Through the use of pharmacy students and technicians in the medication reconciliation process, hospitals experienced cost savings and other health-care professionals had more time for other patient care activities as well as an increased trust in the accuracy of medication histories. Conclusion: These findings suggest that pharmacy students and technicians are accurate, time efficient, decrease costs, and provide support to other health-care professionals when they are included in the medication reconciliation process.

Background Cardiac surgery patients are at high risk of medication errors. Resumption of home medications reduces the significance and number of medication errors. This could be achieved by implementing a medication reconciliation program. Patients and Methods Patients were eligible for inclusion in this prospective study if they were admitted, transferred, and/or discharged under cardiac surgery team care from September 2015 to March 2016. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of unintentional medication discrepancies. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions to resolve discrepancies and their clinical significance, and the medication regimen complexity index and its correlation with discrepancies. Results There were 374 patients included and 1000 encounters tracked. Four-hundred and seventy (47%) of the included encounters were for adult patients. Of the 260 medication discrepancies detected, 181 (69.61%) were detected during admission. Discrepancies among adults were 0.913, 0.307, and 0.176 on admission, transfer, and discharge, respectively. Two-hundred (76.92%) of the interventions recommended by the pharmacy residents were accepted by the medical team, and the remaining were accepted with modifications, with no rejections. One-hundred and sixty-six (83%) of the accepted interventions were of high clinical significance. There was a significant correlation between the number of medication discrepancies and medication regimen complexity index on admission ( p Conclusion Implementation of a medication reconciliation program in cardiac surgery units and its step-down units can be a powerful mean of identifying medication errors in post-cardiac surgery patients at admission and throughout the transition of care.

Medication reconciliation refers to the process of using multiple sources of information to identify the most accurate list of all medications a patient is taking, and using this list to provide correct medications to the patient for the current setting of care (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2014, Institute for Safe Medication Practices [ISMP], 2005; Institute for Healthcare Improvement [IHI], 2017). Although there is considerable research on perceptions about medication reconciliation and opportunities to improve the process, there is a need to use objective measures to understand how this definition is interpreted by providers. We used a simulation study to investigate the process of performing medication reconciliation with oncology providers in an academic medical center. Contrary to our hypothesis we found that rather than the broad medical category of the medication (cancer-related vs. non-cancer condition vs. supplements), providers were more likely to elicit details about medications that were newly added to the electronic medical record. We discuss implications in terms of system redesign and patient safety.

Objective: We evaluated the feasibility and impact of prospective medication review (PMR) in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all nonadmitted ED patients who were prescribed medication orders by ED clinicians from September 2014 to September 2015 to determine the time intervals utilized during each step of the medication use process and quantify the number of interventions conducted by the pharmacist and cost avoidance accrued from the interventions. Results: A total of 834 medication orders were included for evaluation. The median time for order verification, order verification to dispense, and dispense to administration were 3 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] = 1-7 minutes), 20 minutes (IQR = 7-45 minutes), and 10 minutes (IQR = 6-16 minutes). The median time interval for order verification was longer during the overnight pharmacy shift (median = 5 minutes, IQR = 2-9 minutes) compared to the day and evening shifts (median = 3 minutes, IQR = 1-6 minutes). A total of 563 interventions were recommended by the pharmacists and accepted by ED clinicians. These interventions equated to US$47 585 worth of cost avoidance. Conclusion: The PMR is a feasible process that resulted in safe and effective use of medications without causing delays to patient care.

MedHistory is a web-based software module that graphically displays medication usage (y-axis) against time (x-axis). We set out to examine whether MedHistory would improve clinician’s interactions with the medical record system. The authors invited house-officers at our institution to complete a survey about inpatient medication administration before and after using MedHistory. Detailed logs were also kept for 1 year after the study period. Compared to the pre-intervention survey, the post-intervention survey found that reviewing medication history was easier (pre: 13.2% vs post: 32.4%, p = .008), that medication review now fit within resident workflow (38.9% vs 75.7%, p < .001), and that there was increased satisfaction with the electronic health records software (2.6% vs 29.7%, p = .002). Additionally, determining the timing (29% vs 50.1%, p = .045) and dosing history (21.1% vs. 43.2%, p = .036) of inpatient medication administration was easier with MedHistory. Anti-infective agents and drugs requiring frequent adjustments were the most commonly reviewed. A graphical timeline of inpatient medications (MedHistory) was met with favorable response across multiple areas, including efficiency, speed, safety, and workflow.

Aims: To present and discuss implementation experiences regarding the involvement of community pharmacists with ethnic minority backgrounds in a medication review intervention for ethnic minority poly-pharmacy patients in Denmark. Methods: Data sources include 1) reflection notes from an introductory seminar with pharmacists and the cross-disciplinary research team and 2) five individual interviews and one focus group interview with pharmacists. Data were thematically coded and synthesised to identify underlying rationales and challenges encountered when involving professionals with ethnic minority backgrounds in interventions for ethnic minorities. Results: Informants perceived the need for interventions targeted at ethnic minority poly-pharmacy patients, and highlighted the potential of involving professionals with diverse ethnic backgrounds in such interventions. However, implementation created challenges, because the professional identity of the pharmacists reduced their options for serving as peers with the same ethnic background. Furthermore, issues related to organisational difficulties and overcoming language barriers in the intervention impacted on the potential of involving professionals with ethnic minority backgrounds. Conclusions: Involving healthcare professionals with ethnic minority backgrounds in encounters with ethnic minorities holds potential for the adaptation of services to ethnically diverse populations, thus improving access to and quality of care. However, it is important to ensure sufficient personal and organisational support and to acknowledge the delicate balance between simultaneously serving as a peer and as a professional.

The Medication Reconciliation (MedRec) process aims to improve patient safety through safe prescription and medication administration. A validated survey was carried out to address aspects related to MedRec process, its obstacles, the role of information technology, and the required functionalities for optimizing the MedRec process. A total of 81% of the survey’s respondents acknowledged the roles of EHR (62% of respondents), PHR (41%), and electronic medication registration list (33%) as necessary technology tools for MedRec. Most respondents emphasized the need to compile multiple medications’ entries of information technology systems into one application (96.4%), allowing the entries from community pharmacies (90.6%). Further, incorporating information technology into the MedRec process presents a challenge in terms of legal responsibility (92 %) and the ability to integrate medications with other hospitals and community medications (78.6%). Findings affirm the need for a well-designed MedRec process aided with information technology solutions. The external data and user preferences should be considered when redesigning the MedRec process. The study also suggests initiating a policy that mandates sharing data necessary for creating a compiled medication list for each patient. MedRec is an indispensable tool for building a fruitful medication management system in a healthcare organization.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of engaging second professional year student pharmacists in the medication reconciliation process on hospital and health system pharmacy practice outcomes. Methods: Student pharmacists in their second professional year in the Doctor of Pharmacy degree program at our institution were randomly selected from volunteers to participate. Each participant completed training prior to completing three 5-hour evening shifts. Organizational metrics, student pharmacist perception regarding quality of interactions with health care professionals, and pharmacist perceptions were collected. Results: A total of 83 medication histories were performed on complex medical patients (57.0 ± 19.2 years, 51% female, 65% Caucasian, 12 ± 6 medications); of those, 93% were completed within 24 hours of hospital admission. Second professional student pharmacists completed on average 1.9 ± 0.6 medication histories per shift (range 1-3). Student pharmacists identified 0.9 medication-related problems per patient in collaboration with a pharmacist preceptor. Student pharmacists believed the quality of their interactions with health care professionals in the Student Medication and Reconciliation Team (SMART) program was good or excellent. The program has been well received by clinical pharmacists involved in its design and implementation. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that second professional year student pharmacists can assist pharmacy departments in the care of medically complex patients upon hospital admission.

Objective: To evaluate the effect transition of care follow-up and counseling performed by a pharmacist, within a physician’s practice, can have on 30-day hospital readmissions among Medicare patients when compared to the current standard of care Methods: A pharmacist telephonically contacted patients ≥65 years with Medicare insurance following hospital discharge to perform medication reconciliation, review discharge instructions, and schedule a follow-up appointment (n = 34). At this follow-up appointment, the pharmacist reviewed the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR) and communicated recommendations to the physician. The current standard of care, which does not involve a pharmacist, at a similar local physician practice was used as a comparative group (n = 45) Results: The difference in 30-day readmission rates did not reach statistical significance ( P = .27); however, there was a trending decrease in the percentage of patients readmitted between the control and the intervention groups (26.7% vs 14.7%). Additionally, there was nearly a statistically significant decrease in readmission rates for those patients who interacted with the pharmacist face to face versus only telephonically ( P = .05) Conclusions: These results impact the decision to continue and expand the pilot program and demonstrate that pharmacists in the ambulatory setting based within a patient-centered medical home have a potential role in decreasing 30-day hospital readmissions.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated Pharmacy Transitions of Care (PTC) pilot program on reducing hospital readmissions and improving patient satisfaction. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study compares patients who participated in the PTC program to a control of usual hospital discharged patients during January through April 2014. The PTC program provided discharge medication review, medication counseling, delivery of medications to bedside, clinic scheduling, and follow-up phone calls. The primary outcome measure was 30-day readmissions. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, pharmacist interventions, and patient satisfaction. Results: Seventy patients participated in the PTC program. Compared to the control (n = 725), the study group had decreased 30-day all-cause readmissions (5.7% vs 13.8%, P = .08), 30-day readmissions for the same diagnosis (2.9% vs 8.1%, P = .18), and ED visits (18.6% vs 25%, P = .82). Twenty-five interventions during discharge medication review included discontinuation of unnecessary medications and correction of medication dose or frequency. The majority of patients were satisfied with the medication education provided (94%) and the timely delivery of prescriptions to bedside (96%). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates. However, pharmacists were able to make a positive impact on patient satisfaction and improve understanding of medications during discharge.