Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 807–814 | Cite as

Completeness of patient records in community pharmacies post-discharge after in-patient medication reconciliation: a before-after study

  • Fatma Karapinar-ÇarkıtEmail author
  • Ben R. L. van Breukelen
  • Sander D. Borgsteede
  • Marjo J. A. Janssen
  • Antoine C. G. Egberts
  • Patricia M. L. A. van den Bemt
Research Article

Abstract

Background Transfer of discharge medication related information to community pharmacies could improve continuity of care. This requires for community pharmacies to accurately update their patient records when new information is transferred. An instruction manual that specifies how to document information regarding medication changes and clinical information (i.e. allergies/contraindications) could support community pharmacies. Objective To explore the effect of instruction manuals sent to community pharmacies on completeness of their patient records. Setting A before–after study was performed (July 2009–August 2010) in the St Lucas Andreas Hospital, a general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Methods Patients discharged from the cardiology and respiratory ward were included consecutively. The intervention consisted of a training session for community pharmacies regarding documentation problems and faxing an instruction manual to community pharmacies specifying how to document discharge information in their information system. Usual care consisted of faxing a discharge medication overview to community pharmacies without additional instructions. Two weeks after discharge the medication records of community pharmacies were collected by fax. These were compared with the initial discharge overviews regarding completeness of medication changes (i.e. explicit explanation that medication had been changed) and clinical information documentation. Main outcome measure Outcomes were the number and percentage of completely documented medication changes (either needing to be dispensed or not) and clinical information items. The sample size was calculated at 107 patients per measurement period. Multivariable logistic regression was used for analysis. Results Two hundred and eighteen patients (112 before–106 after) were included. Completeness of medication changes documentation increased marginally after the intervention (46.6 vs 56.3 %, adjusted Odds Ratio 1.4 [95 % confidence interval 1.07–1.83]). Documentation increased when medication was actually dispensed by the community pharmacy. No significant improvements were seen for allergy and contraindication documentation. Conclusion The intervention is insufficient to increase the completeness of documentation by community pharmacies as marginal improvements were achieved. Future studies should evaluate whether electronic infrastructures may help in achieving updated medication records to improve continuity of pharmaceutical care.

Keywords

Continuity of care General practice Hospital discharge Medication errors Medication reconciliation Seamless care The Netherlands 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the pharmaceutical consultants, the patients involved in this study, Inge van den Boom (SOZA, i.e. institute for information technology), Bob de Dood (Pharmaceutical Bureau Amsterdam), all community pharmacies that cooperated in this study and the software providers for their efforts and cooperation in this study.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Coleman EA, Smith JD, Raha D, Min SJ. Posthospital medication discrepancies: prevalence and contributing factors. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1842–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tahan HA. One patient, numerous healthcare providers, and multiple care settings: addressing the concerns of care transitions through case management. Prof Case Manag. 2007;12:37–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hellstrom LM, Bondesson A, Hoglund P, Midlov P, Holmdahl L, Rickhag E, et al. Impact of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM) model on medication appropriateness and drug-related hospital revisits. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67:741–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:161–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, Wahlstrom SA, Brown BA, Tarvin E, et al. Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Policy document: transfer of information on medication [in Dutch]. 2008. (Accessed 5 May 2014 at http://www.medicatieoverdracht.nl/uploaddb/downl_object.asp?atoom=9008&VolgNr=1).
  7. 7.
    Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council. Guiding principles to achieve continuity in medication management. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; July 2005. ISBN: 0642825971.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    How-to Guide: Prevent adverse drug events by implementing medication reconciliation. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2011. (Accessed 5 May 2014 at www.ihi.org).
  9. 9.
    The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Moving patients, moving medicines, moving safely. Guidance on discharge and transfer planning. 2005. (Accessed 5 May 2014 at http://psnc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Moving20Medicines20new1.pdf).
  10. 10.
    Cameron B. The impact of pharmacy discharge planning on continuity of care. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1994;47:101–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuehl AK, Chrischilles EA, Sorofman BA. System for exchanging information among pharmacists in different practice environments. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998;55:1017–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cole DL, Slayter KL. Evaluation by patients and pharmacists of a summary form for seamless pharmaceutical care. Can J Hosp Pharm. 1999;52:162–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duggan C, Feldman R, Hough J, Bates I. Reducing adverse prescribing discrepancies following hospital discharge. Int J Pharm Pract. 1998;6:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray S, Urwin M, Woolfrey S, Harrington B, Cox J. Copying hospital discharge summaries to practice pharmacists: does this help implement treatment plans? Qual Prim Care. 2008;16:327–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pegrum S. Seamless care: the need for communication between hospital and community pharmacists. Pharm J. 1995;254:445–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dvorak SR, McCoy RA, Voss GD. Continuity of care from acute to ambulatory care setting. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998;55:2500–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paquette-Lamontagne N, McLean WM, Besse L, Cusson J. Evaluation of a new integrated discharge prescription form. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:953–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lalonde L, Lampron AM, Vanier MC, Levasseur P, Khaddag R, Chaar N. Effectiveness of a medication discharge plan for transitions of care from hospital to outpatient settings. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cresswell KM, Sheikh A. Information technology-based approaches to reducing repeat drug exposure in patients with known drug allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:1112–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karapinar-Carkit F, Borgsteede SD, Zoer J, Siegert C, van TM, Egberts AC, et al. The effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in a multicultural population of internal medicine patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10:39.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Mil J, Dudok van Heel MC, Boersma M, Tromp TF. Interventions and documentation for drug-related problems in Dutch community pharmacies. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:1428–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Linsky A, Simon SR. Medication discrepancies in integrated electronic health records. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;22:103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buurma H, De Smet PA, Kruijtbosch M, Egberts AC. Disease and intolerability documentation in electronic patient records. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:1640–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kliethermes MA. Continuity of care: the significance of the pharmacist’s role. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60:1787–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Linden CMJ, Kerskes MCH, Bijl AMH, Maas HAAM, Egberts ACG, Jansen PAF. Represcription after adverse drug reaction in the elderly: a descriptive study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1666–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Floor-Schreudering A, De Smet PA, Buurma H, Egberts AC, Bouvy ML. Documentation quality in community pharmacy: completeness of electronic patient records after patients’ first visits. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:1787–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma Karapinar-Çarkıt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ben R. L. van Breukelen
    • 1
  • Sander D. Borgsteede
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marjo J. A. Janssen
    • 1
  • Antoine C. G. Egberts
    • 4
    • 5
  • Patricia M. L. A. van den Bemt
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Hospital PharmacySint Lucas Andreas HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medication SurveillanceHealth BaseHoutenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and PolicyLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Clinical PharmacyUniversity Medical Centre UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Division Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of Hospital PharmacyErasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations