Search

Background The first Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement (QI) Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that mentored implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals, but results varied by site. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a refined toolkit on a larger group of hospitals. Methods We conducted a pragmatic quality improvement study (MARQUIS2) at 18 North American hospitals or hospital systems from 2016 to 2018. Incorporating lessons learnt from MARQUIS1, we implemented a refined toolkit, offering 17 system-level and 6 patient- level interventions. One of eight physician mentors coached each site via monthly calls and performed one to two site visits. The primary outcome was number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission or discharge orders per patient. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression. Results A total of 4947 patients were sampled, including 1229 patients preimplementation and 3718 patients postimplementation. Both the number of system-level interventions adopted per site and the proportion of patients receiving patient- level interventions increased over time. During the intervention, patients experienced a steady decline in their medication discrepancy rate from 2.85 discrepancies per patient to 0.98 discrepancies per patient. An interrupted time series analysis of the 17 sites with sufficient data for analysis showed the intervention was associated with a 5% relative decrease in discrepancies per month over baseline temporal trends (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97, p<0.001). Receipt of patient- level interventions was associated with decreased discrepancy rates, and these associations increased over time as sites adopted more system- level interventions. Conclusion A multicentre medication reconciliation QI initiative using mentored implementation of a refined best practices toolkit, including patient-level and system-level interventions, was associated with a substantial decrease in unintentional medication discrepancies over time. Future efforts should focus on sustainability and spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load (VL) monitoring is critical for antiretroviral therapy (ART) management. Point-of-care (POC) VL testing has been reported to be feasible and preferred over standard-of-care (SOC) testing in many low- and middle-income country settings where rapid results could improve patient outcomes., Methods: The timeliness of receipt of VL results was evaluated in an open-label, randomized, controlled trial among patients newly initiating ART. Clinical outcomes with POC VL monitoring using Cepheid Xpert vs SOC VL at Jos University Teaching Hospital and Comprehensive Health Centre Zamko in Nigeria were assessed. We determined time between specimen collection and recording of VL in patient charts, receipt of results, and ART switch for those who met virologic failure criteria., Results: Between April 2018 and October 2019, we screened 696 ART-naive individuals; 273 were randomized to POC and 268 to SOC HIV-1 VL testing. Participants in the POC arm received VL results significantly faster than those in the SOC arm (0.1 median days, interquartile range [IQR], 0.1-0.2 vs 143.1 days, IQR, 56.0-177.1, respectively; P < .0001). Participants in the POC arm with confirmed virologic failure vs those in the SOC arm were switched more rapidly to a second-line regimen (0 median days, IQR, 0-28 vs 66 days, IQR, 63-123, respectively; P = .03)., Conclusions: POC VL testing resulted in significant improvement in the timeliness of VL result receipt by patients and use for effective HIV clinical management. In patients experiencing VL failure, POC monitoring enabled prompt switching to second-line ART regimens., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03533868., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)