0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Effect of Admission Medication Reconciliation on Adverse Drug Events From Admission Medication Changes FREE

Kenneth S. Boockvar, MD, MS; Sharon Blum, PharmD; Anne Kugler, PharmD; Elayne Livote, MS; Kari A. Mergenhagen, PharmD; Jonathan R. Nebeker, MD; Daniel Signor, BS; Soojin Sung, PharmD; Jessica Yeh, PharmD
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):860-861. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.163.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Medication reconciliation, a process by which a health care provider obtains and documents a thorough medication history with specific attention to comparing current and previous medication use, has been a focus of major patient safety initiatives. Evaluations of medication reconciliation programs have reported factors associated with successful implementation1 and its effect on prescribing outcomes such as medication errors2 and potential adverse drug events3 but not its effect on actual adverse drug events (ADEs). The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of inpatient medication reconciliation at the time of hospital admission on ADEs caused by admission prescribing changes.

The study setting was an urban, academic Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. A computerized medication reconciliation tool and admission process were developed to comply with the Joint Commission's National Patient Safety Goal. The tool consisted of a dialogue with which a health care provider could (1) view the patient's outpatient medication use for the last 90 days from VA computerized pharmacy data, (2) view current VA inpatient orders, (3) record discrepancies between patient-reported medications and outpatient and inpatient medications in the VA computerized database, and (4) record diagnostic indications for each medication and a response to each discrepancy. The tool was implemented in a staggered fashion between October 2005 and February 2006 on the 2 general medical units, with early and later implementation units. New admissions were assigned on an alternating basis between the units. Study procedures were approved by our institutional review board.

To ascertain the main outcome, which was ADE “probably” or “certainly” caused by an admission medication change, a research pharmacist (S.B., A.K., K.A.M., or J.Y.)reviewed medical records retrospectively and recorded adverse events during the hospital stay and 1 month after hospital discharge using predefined criteria. She rated whether each event was caused by an admission medication change using structured implicit review.4 An ADE was considered the result of an error when the admission prescribing change was classified as a “probable” or “certain” error.5

The unit of analysis was hospitalization episode. We examined outcome as a function of admission unit and month (either an intervention unit-month or control unit-month), regardless of whether the medication reconciliation tool was actually used (ie, intention to treat), using multivariate logistic regression. Models included as covariates: age, race, number of chronic conditions, number of medications prescribed preadmission, receipt of any non-VA medications before admission, admission illness severity, nonbusiness hours admission, surgical service as primary team, and unit. Models were estimated using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of patients by admitting physicians.

Overall, 612 patients were admitted 795 times. Patients were 97.5% male, 66.9 years old on average, 48.2% white, and were taking a mean of 6.4 medications before admission. There were no significant differences between early and later study units in patient characteristics. There was an overall frequency of 0.165 ADEs caused by an admission medication change per admission (131 during 795 admissions; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.140-0.193). Ninety-eight (75%) were symptomatic; 6 (4.5%) caused prolonged hospital stays; 1 (0.8%) required intensive care; and 5 (3.8%) caused hospital readmission after discharge. In addition, 66 (50%) were classified as due to errors, for an overall frequency of 0.083 ADEs caused by admission prescribing changes that were errors per admission (95% CI, 0.065-0.105).

Medication reconciliation was associated with fewer ADEs caused by admission prescribing changes that were errors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.98; P = .04) but not with ADEs caused by all admission prescribing changes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.68-1.61; P = .86) (Table). Of note, during intervention unit-months, 194 of 359 admissions (54%) received admission medication reconciliation (indicating partial adherence), and during control unit-months 25 of 436 admissions (5.7%) received medication reconciliation (indicating slight contamination).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Multivariable Models for the Association Between Admission to a Unit With Medication Reconciliation (Intention-to-Treat) and Outcomes

In this study of medication reconciliation at the time of hospital admission, we found that medication reconciliation reduced by 43% ADEs caused by admission prescribing changes classified as errors but did not reduce ADEs caused by all admission prescribing changes. One example of a non–error-related ADE was discontinuation of transdermal nitroglycerin use in a patient with low blood pressure on admission and subsequent harm from recrudescent angina. Adverse drug events of this type would not be averted by 1-time medication reconciliation on admission, but might be averted by improved provider awareness and monitoring of admission prescribing changes during the hospital stay. The potential impact of such an intervention is large, since 50% of ADEs in this study were caused by admission medication changes that were not errors—a percentage consistent with other studies6—and 85% of the ADEs in this study occurred before hospital discharge and would not be averted by discharge medication reconciliation.

Our findings are important because few studies have examined medication reconciliation's effect on patient health, perhaps because of the resource intensiveness of ascertaining ADEs. One study showed a reduction of similar magnitude in discrepancy-related ADEs with medication reconciliation on readmission to a nursing home from a hospital.7 Another study showed no difference in hospital use with medication reconciliation at the time of hospital discharge.8 Medication errors or discrepancies are an imperfect surrogate for ADEs because they are very common and only a small fraction of them cause harm.6 Studies have shown that medication errors that occur on hospital admission are most commonly incorrect or incomplete medication histories,5 variances in patient compliance from what is prescribed,9 and, as shown in the present study, noncomprehensive data systems (ie, a substantial minority of study patients received medications from outside the VA system).

A limitation of this study was that the medication reconciliation process during the first 3 months of implementation did not yet fit ideally into health care provider workflow and adherence was low.

Although our findings provide overall support for medication reconciliation, they suggest that the optimal form of medication reconciliation should include tools to track prescribing changes that occurred on admission so that patients are not harmed by their unmonitored propagation during the hospitalization. Additional research on the effect of medication reconciliation on ADEs is important given (1) our finding of its association with no change in or even an increase in non–error-associated ADEs and (2) the resource-intensive nature of the process and organizational challenges with its implementation.

Correspondence: Dr Boockvar, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, 130 W Kingsbridge Rd, Bronx, NY 10468 (kenneth.boockvar@mssm.edu).

Author Affiliations: Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York (Drs Boockvar and Yeh; Ms Livote; and Mr Signor,); Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Jewish Home Lifecare, New York, New York (Dr Boockvar); Brookdale University Hospital (Dr Blum) and Long Island University College of Pharmacy (Dr Kugler), Brooklyn, New York; VA Western New York Healthcare System, Buffalo, New York (Dr Mergenhagen); VA Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Dr Nebeker); and Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn (Dr Sung).

Author Contributions: Dr Boockvar had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Boockvar, Nebeker, and Sung. Acquisition of data: Boockvar, Blum, Kugler, Livote, Mergenhagen, Signor, and Yeh. Analysis and interpretation of data: Boockvar, Blum, and Signor. Drafting of the manuscript: Boockvar, Blum, Sung, and Yeh. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Boockvar, Blum, Kugler, Livote, Mergenhagen, Nebeker, and Signor. Statistical analysis: Boockvar and Livote. Obtained funding: Boockvar. Administrative, technical, and material support: Boockvar, Blum, Sung, and Yeh. Study supervision: Boockvar and Blum.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development grant IAB-05-204. Dr Boockvar is also supported by the Greenwall Foundation.

Role of the Sponsor: The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Previous Presentations: This study was presented as a poster at the VA National Medication Reconciliation Conference; May 18-20, 2010; Salt Lake City, Utah; and at the VA Office of Quality and Performance Systems Redesign Conference; June 22-24, 2010; San Francisco, California.

Rogers  GAlper  EBrunelle  D  et al.  Reconciling medications at admission: safe practice recommendations and implementation strategies. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006;32 (1) 37- 50
PubMed
Vira  TColquhoun  MEtchells  E Reconcilable differences: correcting medication errors at hospital admission and discharge. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15 (2) 122- 126
PubMed Link to Article
Schnipper  JLHamann  CNdumele  CD  et al.  Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation application and process redesign on potential adverse drug events: a cluster-randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (8) 771- 780
PubMed Link to Article
Naranjo  CABusto  USellers  EM  et al.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30 (2) 239- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Gleason  KMMcDaniel  MRFeinglass  J  et al.  Results of the Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) study: an analysis of medication reconciliation errors and risk factors at hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25 (5) 441- 447
PubMed Link to Article
Boockvar  KSLiu  SGoldstein  NNebeker  JSiu  AFried  T Prescribing discrepancies likely to cause adverse drug events after patient transfer. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18 (1) 32- 36
PubMed Link to Article
Boockvar  KSCarlson LaCorte  HGiambanco  VFridman  BSiu  A Medication reconciliation for reducing drug-discrepancy adverse events. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2006;4 (3) 236- 243
PubMed Link to Article
Walker  PCBernstein  SJJones  JN  et al.  Impact of a pharmacist-facilitated hospital discharge program: a quasi-experimental study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (21) 2003- 2010
PubMed Link to Article
Kaboli  PJMcClimon  BJHoth  ABBarnett  MJ Assessing the accuracy of computerized medication histories. Am J Manag Care 2004;10 (11, pt 2) 872- 877
PubMed

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Multivariable Models for the Association Between Admission to a Unit With Medication Reconciliation (Intention-to-Treat) and Outcomes

References

Rogers  GAlper  EBrunelle  D  et al.  Reconciling medications at admission: safe practice recommendations and implementation strategies. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006;32 (1) 37- 50
PubMed
Vira  TColquhoun  MEtchells  E Reconcilable differences: correcting medication errors at hospital admission and discharge. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15 (2) 122- 126
PubMed Link to Article
Schnipper  JLHamann  CNdumele  CD  et al.  Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation application and process redesign on potential adverse drug events: a cluster-randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (8) 771- 780
PubMed Link to Article
Naranjo  CABusto  USellers  EM  et al.  A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;30 (2) 239- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Gleason  KMMcDaniel  MRFeinglass  J  et al.  Results of the Medications at Transitions and Clinical Handoffs (MATCH) study: an analysis of medication reconciliation errors and risk factors at hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25 (5) 441- 447
PubMed Link to Article
Boockvar  KSLiu  SGoldstein  NNebeker  JSiu  AFried  T Prescribing discrepancies likely to cause adverse drug events after patient transfer. Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18 (1) 32- 36
PubMed Link to Article
Boockvar  KSCarlson LaCorte  HGiambanco  VFridman  BSiu  A Medication reconciliation for reducing drug-discrepancy adverse events. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2006;4 (3) 236- 243
PubMed Link to Article
Walker  PCBernstein  SJJones  JN  et al.  Impact of a pharmacist-facilitated hospital discharge program: a quasi-experimental study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169 (21) 2003- 2010
PubMed Link to Article
Kaboli  PJMcClimon  BJHoth  ABBarnett  MJ Assessing the accuracy of computerized medication histories. Am J Manag Care 2004;10 (11, pt 2) 872- 877
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles