Post discharge follow up of children on long term medication

Background: There have been no published studies observing what happens to children post hospital discharge and if medication discrepancies occurred between the hospital and General Practitioner (GP) interface.1 Objectives: To identify the type of discrepancies between hospital discharge prescription and the patient's medicines after their first GP prescription. Method: Over a 3 month period (March–June 2012) across two London NHS hospital sites, parents of children on long term medications aged 18 years and under, were approached and consented prior to discharge from the ward. The patients were followed up 21 days after discharge by telephone call or home visit depending on their preference. The parent was asked if they had contacted their GP for further medications during the follow up, and if not the follow up was rescheduled. The parents were interviewed to find out if there were any discrepancies that occurred post discharge by comparing the patient's hospital discharge letter and medication at follow up. All this information was captured on a data collection form. Results: Eighty-eight patients were consented and 60 patients (68%; 60/88) were followed up by telephone call 21 days post discharge. A total of 317 medications were ordered at discharge among the 60 patients. Of the 60 that were followed up, nine were lost to follow up, one died post discharge, one was excluded from the study, and 11 had not contacted the GP and were to be followed up at a later date. Of the 38 patients who were followed up, 254 medications were ordered. Of the 38 patients there were 12 (32%) patients who had discrepancies that occurred between the discharge letter and GP, 19 (50%) had no issues, and seven (18%) mentioned issues to do with post discharge that were not discrepancies. Of the 12 patients who had at least one medication discrepancy (total 34 medications, range 1–7 discrepancies per patient), six patients had GP discrepancies, four had discrepancies resulting from a hospital outpatient appointment, one related to the discharge letter order and one was a complex discrepancy. An example: a patient was discharged on amiodarone liquid 16.5 mg daily as opposed to 65 mg daily of amiodarone from the GP. Upon interview the parent used volume units to communicate dose as opposed to the actual dose itself and the strengths of liquid had changed. Conclusions: The preliminary results from the study have shown that discrepancies due to several causes occur when paediatric patients leave hospital.

The effects of negative affectivity on self-reported activity limitations in stroke patients:testing the symptom perception, disability and psychosomatic hypotheses

This study investigated whether Negative Affectivity (NA) causes bias in self-report measures of activity limitations or whether NA has a real, non-artifactual association with activity limitations. The Symptom Perception Hypothesis (NA negatively biases self-reporting), Disability Hypothesis (activity limitations cause NA) and Psychosomatic Hypothesis (NA causes activity limitations) were examined longitudinally using both self-report and objective activity limitations measures. Participants were 101 stroke patients and their caregivers interviewed within two weeks of discharge, six weeks later and six months post-discharge. NA and self-report, proxy-report and observed performance activity (walking) limitations were assessed at each interview. NA was associated with activity limitations across measures. Both the Disability and Psychosomatic Hypotheses were supported: initial NA predicted objective activity limitations at six weeks but, additionally, activity limitations at six weeks predicted NA at six months. These results suggest that NA both affects and is affected by activity limitations and does not simply influence reporting.

Medicines reconciliation at the point of hospital discharge for children

Objectives: Hospital discharge is a transition of care, where medication discrepancies are likely to occur and potentially cause patient harm. The purpose of our study was to assess the prescribing accuracy of hospital discharge medication orders at a London, UK teaching hospital. The timeliness of the discharge summary reaching the general practitioner (GP, family physician) was also assessed based on the 72 h target referenced in the Care Quality Commission report.1 Method: 501 consecutive discharge medication orders from 142 patients were examined and the following records were compared (1) the final inpatient drug chart at the point of discharge, (2) printed signed copy of the initial to take away (TTA) discharge summary produced electronically by the physician, (3) the pharmacist's amendments on the initial TTA that were hand written, (4) the final electronic patient discharge summary record, (5) the patients final take home medication from the hospital. Discrepancies between the physician's order (6) and pharmacist's change(s) (7) were compared with two types of failures – ‘failure to make a required change’ and ‘change where none was required’. Once the patient was discharged, the patient's GP, was contacted 72 h after discharge to see if the patient discharge summary, sent by post or via email, was received. Results: Over half the patients seen (73 out of 142) patients had at least one discrepancy that was made on the initial TTA by the doctor and amended by the pharmacist. Out of the 501 drugs, there were 140 discrepancies, 108 were ‘failures to make a required change’ (77%) and 32 were ‘changes where none were required’ (23%). The types of ‘failures to make required changes’ discrepancies that were found between the initial TTA and pharmacist's amendments were paracetamol and ibuprofen changes (dose banding) 38 (27%), directions of use 34 (24%), incorrect formulation of medication 28 (20%) and incorrect strength 8 (6%). The types of ‘changes where none were required discrepancies’ were omitted medication 15 (11%), unnecessary drug 14 (10%) and incorrect medicine including spelling mistakes 3 (2%). After contacting the GPs of the discharged patients 72 h postdischarge; 49% had received the discharge summary and 45% had not, the remaining 6% were patients who were discharged without a GP. Conclusion: This study shows that doctor prescribing at discharge is often not accurate, and interventions made by pharmacist to reconcile are important at this point of care. It was also found that half the discharge summaries had not reached the patient's family physician (according to the GP) within 72 h.