Inclusion of salt form on prescription medication labeling as a source of patient confusion: a pilot study

Background: It has been estimated that 10,000 patient injuries occur in the US annually due to confusion involving drug names. An unexplored source of patient misunderstandings may be medication salt forms. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess patient knowledge and comprehension regarding the salt forms of medications as a potential source of medication errors. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire which assessed patient knowledge of medication names on prescription labels was administered to a convenience sample of patients presenting to a family practice clinic. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: There were 308 responses. Overall, 41% of patients agreed they find their medication names confusing. Participants correctly answered to salt form questions between 12.1% and 56.9% of the time. Taking more prescription medications and higher education level were positively associated with providing more correct answers to 3 medication salt form knowledge questions, while age was negatively associated. Conclusions: Patient misconceptions about medication salt forms are common. These findings support recommendations to standardize the inclusion or exclusion of salt forms. Increasing patient education is another possible approach to reducing confusion.

Impact of parenteral nutrition standardization on costs and quality in adult patients

Background: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly therapy that can also be associated with serious complications. Therefore, efforts are focusing on reducing rate of complications, and costs related to PN. Objective: The aim was to analyze the effect of the implementation of PN standardization on costs and quality criteria. Secondary aim was to assess the use of individualized PN based on patient's clinical condition. Methods: We compare the use of PN before and after the implementation of PN standardization. Demographic, clinical and PN characteristics were collected. Costs analysis was performed to study the costs associated to the two different periods. Quality criteria included were: 1) PN administration; 2) nutrition assessment (energy intake between 20-35 kcal/kg/day; protein contribution according to nitrogen balance); 3) safety and complications (hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hepatic complications, catheter-related infection); 4) global efficacy (as serum albumin increase). Chi-square test was used to compare percentages; logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the use of customized PN. Results: 296 patients were included with a total of 3,167 PN compounded. During the first period standardized PN use was 47.5% vs 85.7% within the second period (p < 0.05). No differences were found in the quality criteria tested. Use of individualized PN was related to critical care patients, hypertriglyceridemia, renal damage, and long-term PN. Mean costs of the PN decreased a 19.5%. Annual costs savings would be € 86,700. Conclusions: The use of customized or standard PN has shown to be efficient and flexible to specific demands; however customized PN was significantly more expensive.

Medication reconciliation at patient admission: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To measure length of hospital stay (LHS) in patients receiving medication reconciliation. Secondary characteristics included analysis of number of preadmission medications, medications prescribed at admission, number of discrepancies, and pharmacists interventions done and accepted by the attending physician. Methods: A 6 month, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a public teaching hospital in southern Brazil. Patients admitted to general wards were randomized to receive usual care or medication reconciliation, performed within the first 72 hours of hospital admission. Results: The randomization process assigned 68 patients to UC and 65 to MR. LHS was 10±15 days in usual care and 9±16 days in medication reconciliation (p=0.620). The total number of discrepancies was 327 in the medication reconciliation group, comprising 52.6% of unintentional discrepancies. Physicians accepted approximately 75.0% of the interventions. Conclusion: These results highlight weakness at patient transition care levels in a public teaching hospital. LHS, the primary outcome, should be further investigated in larger studies. Medication reconciliation was well accepted by physicians and it is a useful tool to find and correct discrepancies, minimizing the risk of adverse drug events and improving patient safety.