9, p 70.001) or elderly wards (from 60% to 73%; χ2=22.4, p<0.001). The use of other sources did not change significantly. All of the sources checked had yielded potentially clinically significant discrepancies. The findings showed that: primary care (GP) records were a source of information about drugs prescribed for physical illness; patients and carers were a source of information Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical about medication that was actually being taken; and community mental health team records were a source of information about depot antipsychotic medication.
Regarding the staff members who undertook the task of medicines reconciliation, at baseline, pharmacy staff were involved with 1251 (70%) patients in the total sample: 467 patients (26%) within 1day of Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical admission, an additional 533 patients by 3days (30%) and a further 251 within 7days (14%). The respective figures at re-audit were 1902 (83%) for the total sample, and 749 (33%), 713 (31%) and 440 (19%) for the 1-, 3- and 7-day involvement.
At baseline, 62% of all discrepancies identified in acute adult settings were found by pharmacy staff (pharmacist, pharmacy or medicines management technicians). This proportion increased to 80% at re-audit. With respect to the involvement of doctors in medicines reconciliation, 24% of discrepancies in acute adult settings at Proteasome activity baseline were Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical identified by doctors and at re-audit this proportion had fallen to 14%. Across Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the total sample, the two sources that, when consulted, were most likely to identify a discrepancy were the primary care
record (14% at baseline and 17% at re-audit) and asking the patient (6% at baseline and 7% at re-audit). Medicines reconciliation can only be achieved when two or more sources of information are consulted about current medicines, and compared. The proportion of patients across all participating services in whom medicines reconciliation was possible because more than one source was checked is shown in Figure 1. Figure Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical 1 also shows the proportion of such Oxymatrine patients in whom a discrepancy was identified at re-audit (31%). The respective proportion at baseline audit had been 25%. Figure 1. The proportions of patients in each participating Trust for whom two or more sources of information about medicines being taken were checked (i.e. medicines reconciliation was possible) and the proportions for whom discrepancies were identified: re-audit. … Clinical practice with respect to checking two or more sources of information about a patient’s medicines was slightly better at re-audit in Trusts that had had a comprehensive medicines reconciliation policy in place at baseline than in those Trusts that had not, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (t=−0.021, DF=36, p=0.081).
Related posts: