An evaluation of the epidemiology of medication discrepancies and clinical significance of medicines reconciliation in children admitted to hospital

Aims: To determine the incidence of unintended medication discrepancies in paediatric patients at the time of hospital admission; evaluate the process of medicines reconciliation; assess the benefit of medicines reconciliation in preventing clinical harm. Method: A 5 month prospective multisite study. Pharmacists at four English hospitals conducted admission medicines reconciliation in children using a standardised data collection form. A discrepancy was defined as a difference between the patient's preadmission medication (PAM), compared with the initial admission medication orders written by the hospital doctor. The discrepancies were classified into intentional and unintentional discrepancies. The unintentional discrepancies were assessed for potential clinical harm by a team of healthcare professionals, which included doctors, pharmacists and nurses. Results: Medicines reconciliation was conducted in 244 children admitted to hospital. 45% (109/244) of the children had at least one unintentional medication discrepancy between the PAM and admission medication order. The overall results indicated that 32% (78/244) of patients had at least one clinically significant unintentional medication discrepancy with potential to cause moderate 20% (50/244) or severe 11% (28/244) harm. No single source of information provided all the relevant details of a patient's medication history. Parents/carers provided the most accurate details of a patient's medication history in 81% of cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that in the absence of medicines reconciliation, children admitted to hospitals across England are at risk of harm from unintended medication discrepancies at the transition of care from the community to hospital. No single source of information provided a reliable medication history.

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy cohort study:report 1: effectiveness and factors influencing outcomes

Purpose - To compare the visual outcomes after verteporfin photodynamic therapy (VPDT) administered in routine clinical practice with those observed in the Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy (TAP) trials and to quantify the effects of clinically important baseline covariates on outcome. Design - A prospective longitudinal study of patients treated with VPDT in 45 ophthalmology departments in the United Kingdom with expertise in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Participants - Patients with wholly or predominantly classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) of any cause with a visual acuity =20/200 in the eye to be treated. Methods - Refracted best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity were measured in VPDT-treated eyes at baseline and subsequent visits. Eyes were retreated at 3 months if CNV was judged to be active. Baseline angiograms were graded to quantify the percentages of classic and occult CNV. Treated eyes were categorized as eligible or ineligible for TAP, or unclassifiable. Main Outcome Measures - Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity during 1 year of follow-up after initial treatment. Results - A total of 7748 treated patients were recruited. Data from 4043 patients with a diagnosis of nAMD were used in the present analysis. Reading center determination of lesion type showed that 87% were predominantly classic CNV. Eyes received 2.4 treatments in year 1 and 0.4 treatments in year 2. Deterioration of BCVA over 1 year was similar to that observed in the VPDT arms of the TAP trials and was not influenced by TAP eligibility classification. Best-corrected visual acuity deteriorated more quickly in current smokers; with increasing proportion of classic CNV, increasing age, and better baseline BCVA; and when the fellow eye was the better eye.

Medication discrepancies at transitions in pediatrics:a review of the literature

Medication reconciliation is an important process in reducing medication errors in many countries. Canada, the USA, and UK have incorporated medication reconciliation as a priority area for national patient safety initiatives and goals. The UK national guidance excludes the pediatric population. The aim of this review was to explore the occurrence of medication discrepancies in the pediatric population. The primary objective was to identify studies reporting the rate and clinical significance of the discrepancies and the secondary objective was to ascertain whether any specific interventions have been used for medication reconciliation in pediatric settings. The following electronic bibliographic databases were used to identify studies: PubMed, OVID EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 1), ISI Web of Science, ISI Biosis, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and OVID International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to January 2012). Primary studies were identified that observed medication discrepancies in children under 18 years of age upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge, or had reported medication reconciliation interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data using pre-defined data fields, including risk of bias assessment. Ten studies were identified with variances in reportage of stage and rate of discrepancies. Studies were heterogeneous in definitions, methods, and patient populations. Most studies related to admissions and reported consistently high rates of discrepancies ranging from 22 to 72.3 % of patients (sample size ranging from 23 to 272). Seven of the studies were low-quality observational studies and three studies were 'grey literature' non-peer reviewed conference abstracts. Studies involving small numbers of patients have shown that medication discrepancies occur at all transitions of care in children. Further research is required to investigate and demonstrate how implementing medication reconciliation can reduce discrepancies and potential patient harm. © 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

An evaluation of paediatric medicines reconciliation at hospital discharge into the community

OBJECTIVE: A UK national survey of primary care physicians has indicated that the medication information on hospital discharge summary was incomplete or inaccurate most of the time. Internationally, studies have shown that hospital pharmacist's interventions reduce these discrepancies in the adult population. There have been no published studies on the incidence and severity of the discrepancies of the medication prescribed for children specifically at discharge to date. The objectives of this study were to investigate the incidence, nature and potential clinical severity of medication discrepancies at the point of hospital discharge in a paediatric setting. METHODS: Five weeks prospective review of hospital discharge letters was carried out. Medication discrepancies between the initial doctor's discharge letter and finalised drug chart were identified, pharmacist changes were recorded and their severity was assessed. The setting of the review was at a London, UK paediatric hospital providing local secondary and specialist tertiary care. The outcome measures were: - incidence and the potential clinical severity of medication discrepancies identified by the hospital pharmacist at discharge. KEY FINDINGS: 142 patients (64 female and 78 males, age range 1 month - 18 years) were discharged on 501 medications. The majority of patients were under the care of general surgery and general paediatric teams. One in three discharge letters contained at least one medication discrepancy and required pharmacist interventions to rectify prior to completion. Of these, 1 in 10 had the potential for patient harm if undetected. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines reconciliation by pharmacist at discharge may be a good intervention in preventing medication discrepancies which have the potential to cause moderate harm in paediatric patients.

What is the current practice of medicines reconciliation in children nationally in the UK?

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/National Patient Safety Agency (NICE/NPSA) guidelines for medicines reconciliation (MR) on admission to hospital in adult inpatients were introduced in 2007, but they excluded children less than 16 years of age. METHOD: We conducted a survey of 98 paediatric pharmacists (each from a different hospital) to find out what the current practice of MR in children is in the UK. KEY FINDINGS: Responses showed that 67% (43/64) of pharmacists surveyed carried out MR in all children at admission and only a third 34% (22/64) had policies for MR in children. Of the respondents who did not carry out MR in all children, 80% (4/5) responded that they did so in selected children. Pharmacists considered themselves the most appropriate profession for carrying out MR. When asked whether the NICE guidance should be expanded to include children, 98% (54/55) of the respondents answered 'yes'. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the findings suggest that MR is being conducted inconsistently in children and most paediatric pharmacists would like national guidance to be expanded to include children.

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.

Epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon hospital admission in children - a systematic review

Objectives: NICE/NPSA excluded children under 16 from their guidance concerning medicines reconciliation (MR) upon admission.1 Our aims and objectives of conducting the literature review was to identify the epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon admission, transfer and discharge in children, and if they require MR. Method: Six bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science and Biosis Previews) and selected key words were used to find epidemiological studies on medication discrepancies in children upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge (key words included ‘medication discrepancy’; ‘medication reconciliation’; ‘hospital admission’; ‘hospital discharge’; ‘hospital transfer’); studies where the data for children could be extracted were included. Results: From the 1239 articles found (in May 2011), eight of the articles had extractable paediatric information, (five from Canada, two from USA, one from UK). Five of the studies involved discrepancies on admission, one involved discrepancies on admission and transfer, one involved discrepancies at transfer and one considered discharge. The reference point used to compare against the admission, transfer and the discharge order differed in each of the studies. Four studies used a rating scale to assess the clinical significance of the discrepancies to demonstrate the potential adverse clinical outcome of patients in the absence of clinical intervention. Two studies2 3 used a rating scale that was used in adults.4 A study of paediatric neurosurgical patients found that initial hospital prescriptions for children differed from the preadmission prescriptions in 39% of occasions and 50% of all prescribing variations had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.2 A study by Coffey et al in general paediatric admissions in Canada showed 22% of patients experienced at least one discrepancy and 29% of the discrepancies had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.3 By comparison an epidemiological study in discrepancies in adults on admission had 38.6% of the discrepancies identified with a potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.4 All the studies involved small samples or specific patient groups such as medically complex patients. However all of the studies demonstrated that discrepancies occurred among paediatric populations during transitions in care settings and mentioned MR as an intervention. Conclusion: The results have shown that discrepancies of medication upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge occur regularly in children. With only one published study in the UK looking at hospital admission in children, and no published articles on the incidence and epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon hospital transfer or discharge further research is required in a wider paediatric population. Further work is also required to define the required interventions to improve practice.

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.

The clinical significance of medicines reconciliation in children admitted to hospital

Aims and Objectives: The NICE/NPSA guidance on Medicines Reconciliation in adults upon hospital admission excludes children under the age of 16.1 Hence the primary aim and objective of this study was to use medicines reconciliation to primarily identify if discrepancies occur upon hospital admission. Secondary objectives were to clinically assess for harm discrepancies that were identified in paediatric patients on long term medications at four hospitals across the UK. Method: Medicines reconciliation is a procedure where the current medication history of a patient prior to hospital admission would be taken and verifying the medication orders made at hospital admission against this history, addressing any discrepancies identified. Medicines reconciliation was carried out prospectively for 244 paediatric patients on chronic medication across four UK hospitals (Birmingham, London, Leeds and North Staffordshire) between January – May 2011. Medicines reconciliation was conducted by a clinical pharmacist using the following sources of information: 1) the patient's Pre-Admission Medication (PAM) from the patient's general practitioner 2) examination of the Patient's Own Medications brought into hospital, 3) a semi-structured interview with the parent-carers and 4) identification of admission medication orders written on the drug chart prior to clinical pharmacy input (Drug Chart). Discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart were documented and classified as intentional or unintentional. Intentional discrepancies were defined as changes that were made knowingly by the prescriber and confirmed. Unintentional discrepancies were assessed for clinical significance by an expert panel and assigned a significance score based on the likelihood of causing potential discomfort or clinical deterioration: class 1 unlikely, class 2 moderate and class 3 severe.2 Results: 1004 medication regimens were included from the 244 patients across the four sites. 588 of the 1004 (59%) medicines, had discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart; of these 36% (n = 209) were unintentional and included for clinically assessment. 189 drug discrepancies 30% were classified as class 1, 47% were class 2 and 23% were class 3 discrepancies. The remaining 20 discrepancies were cases where deviating from the PAM would have been the right thing to do, which might suggest that an intentional but undocumented discrepancy by the prescriber writing up the admission order may have occurred. Conclusion: The results suggest that medication discrepancies in paediatric patients do occur upon hospital admission, which do have a potential to cause harm and that medicines reconciliation is a potential solution to preventing such discrepancies. References: 1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Patient Safety Agency. PSG001. Technical patient safety solutions for medicines reconciliation on admission of adults to hospital. London: NICE; 2007. 2. Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, et al. Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165:424–429