Cynthia L. LaCivita

Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant and implementable: a consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps.

Medication errors and adverse events caused by them are common during and after a hospitalization. The impact of these events on patient welfare and the financial burden, both to the patient and the healthcare system, are significant. In 2005, The Joint Commission put forth medication reconciliation as National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) No. 8 in an effort to minimize adverse events caused during these types of care transitions. However, the meaningful and systematic implementation of medication reconciliation, as expressed through NPSG No. 8, proved to be extraordinarily difficult for healthcare institutions around the country. Given the importance of accurate and complete medication reconciliation for patient safety occurring across the continuum of care, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a stakeholder conference in 2009 to begin to identify and address: (1) barriers to implementation; (2) opportunities to identify best practices surrounding medication reconciliation; (3) the role of partnerships among traditional healthcare sites and nonclinical and other community-based organizations; and (4) metrics for measuring the processes involved in medication reconciliation and their impact on preventing harm to patients. The focus of the conference was oriented toward medication reconciliation for a hospitalized patient population; however, many of the themes and concepts derived would also apply to other care settings. This paper highlights the key domains needing to be addressed and suggests first steps toward doing so. An overarching principle derived at the conference is that medication reconciliation should not be viewed as an accreditation function. It must, first and foremost, be recognized as an important element of patient safety. From this principle, the participants identified ten key areas requiring further attention in order to move medication reconciliation toward this focus. 1 There is need for a uniformly acceptable and accepted definition of what constitutes a medication and what processes are encompassed by reconciliation. Clarifying these terms is critical to ensuring more uniform impact of medication reconciliation. 2 The varying roles of the multidisciplinary participants in the reconciliation process must be clearly defined. These role definitions should include those of the patient and family/caregiver and must occur locally, taking into account the need for flexibility in design given the varying structures and resources at healthcare sites. 3 Measures of the reconciliation processes must be clinically meaningful (i.e., of defined benefit to the patient) and derived through consultation with stakeholder groups. Those measures to be reported for national benchmarking and accreditation should be limited in number and clinically meaningful. 4 While a comprehensive reconciliation system is needed across the continuum of care, a phased approach to implementation, allowing it to start slowly and be tailored to local organizational structures and work flows, will increase the chances of successful organizational uptake. 5 Developing mechanisms for prospectively and proactively identifying patients at risk for medication-related adverse events and failed reconciliation is needed. Such an alert system would help maintain vigilance toward these patient safety issues and help focus additional resources on high risk patients. 6 Given the diversity in medication reconciliation practices, research aimed at identifying effective processes is important and should be funded with national resources. Funding should include varying sites of care (e.g., urban and rural, academic and nonacademic, etc.). 7 Strategies for medication reconciliation-both successes and key lessons learned from unsuccessful efforts-should be widely disseminated. 8 A personal health record that is integrated and easily transferable between sites of care is needed to facilitate successful medication reconciliation. 9 Partnerships between healthcare organizations and community-based organizations create opportunities to reinforce medication safety principles outside the traditional clinician-patient relationship. Leveraging the influence of these organizations and other social networking platforms may augment population-based understanding of their importance and role in medication safety. 10 Aligning healthcare payment structures with medication safety goals is critical to ensure allocation of adequate resources to design and implement effective medication reconciliation processes. Medication reconciliation is complex and made more complicated by the disjointed nature of the American healthcare system. Addressing these ten points with an overarching goal of focusing on patient safety rather than accreditation should result in improvements in medication reconciliation and the health of patients.

Making Inpatient Medication Reconciliation Patient Centered, Clinically Relevant, and Implementable: A Consensus Statement on Key Principles and Necessary First Steps

This white paper identifies potential solutions to help ensure the utility and sustainability of this critical patient safety issue.

ASHP-SHM Joint Statement on Hospitalist-Pharmacist Collaboration.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) and the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM) believe that the rapidly emerging hospitalist model of inpatient care offers new and significant opportunities to optimize patient care through collaboration among hospitalists, hospital pharmacists

Patient-reported communications with pharmacy staff at community pharmacies: The Alabama NSAID Patient Safety Study, 2005–2007

OBJECTIVES To examine the prevalence of patient-pharmacy staff communication about medications for pain and arthritis and to assess disparities in communication by demographic, socioeconomic, and health indicators. DESIGN Descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional study. SETTING Alabama between 2005 and 2007. PATIENTS 687 Patients participating in the Alabama NSAID Patient Safety Study (age >or=50 years and currently taking a prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]). INTERVENTION Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Communication with pharmacy staff about prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs was examined before and after adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, and health indicators. RESULTS For the entire cohort (n = 687), mean (+/-SD) age was 68.3 +/- 10.0 years, 72.8% were women, 36.4% were black, and 31.2% discussed use of prescription pain/arthritis medications with pharmacy staff. Discussing use of prescription pain/arthritis medications with pharmacy staff differed by race/gender (P < 0.001): white men (40.3%), white women (34.6%), black men (30.2%), and black women (19.8%). Even after multivariable adjustment, black women had the lowest odds of discussing their medications with pharmacy staff (odds ratio 0.40 [95% CI 0.24-0.56]) compared with white men. For the 63.0% of participants with recently overlapping prescription and OTC NSAID use, communication with pharmacy staff about OTC NSAIDs use was only 13.7% and did not vary significantly by race/gender group. CONCLUSION Given the complex risks and benefits of chronic NSAID use, pharmacists, pharmacy staff, and patients all are missing an important opportunity to avoid unsafe prescribing and decrease medication adverse events.

Using single-item health literacy screening questions to identify patients who read written nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine information provided at pharmacies

Our goal was to assess the relationships between single-item health literacy screening questions and reading prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) written medicine information (WMI) provided at pharmacies. The health literacy of 382 patients from primary care physician practices in Alabama was estimated using validated health literacy screening questions related to understanding written medical information (SQ1); confidence in completing medical forms alone (SQ2); and need for assistance in reading hospital materials (SQ3). Reading WMI was measured by a “Yes” response to the question, “Often the drug store gives you written information such as pamphlets or handouts along with your prescription. Have you read about the risks of NSAIDs in this written material provided by the drug store?” Relationships were assessed using generalized linear latent and mixed models. Two-thirds (67.6%) of patients read WMI. Higher estimated health literacy was associated with increased odds of reading WMI. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) were 2.08 (1.08–4.03); 2.09 (1.12–3.91); and 1.98 (1.04–3.77) using SQ1–SQ3. Current WMI may be unable to meet the needs of those with inadequate health literacy. Health literacy screening questions can be used to triage patients at risk for not reading WMI so they can be assisted with supplemental educational strategies.