4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit
BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MR) makes it possible to identify medication errors. Because it is labour-intensive, it is often limited to certain specific hospital units (HU).PurposeThe goal of this study was to evaluate a MR activity targeting patients at the highest risk admitted to the eme...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2018-03, Vol.25 (Suppl 1), p.A146-A147 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A147 |
---|---|
container_issue | Suppl 1 |
container_start_page | A146 |
container_title | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Mondoloni, P Donier, L Gougeard, A Renzullo, C Leroy, B Penaud, JF Coutet, J |
description | BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MR) makes it possible to identify medication errors. Because it is labour-intensive, it is often limited to certain specific hospital units (HU).PurposeThe goal of this study was to evaluate a MR activity targeting patients at the highest risk admitted to the emergency unit.Material and methodsA single-centre prospective study was performed for 6 months in patients hospitalised through the emergency unit. Emergency unit physicians or nurses would fill in a prioritisation grid of MR including 10 clinical and therapeutic factors. This grid, which was based on a bibliographic study and a prior internal study, included a box « don’t know » (DK) for every factor. A pharmacist collected the grids daily and calculated the risk score of each patient: in the case of a score ≥10, a pharmacist performed a MR of the patient in the unit where s/he was hospitalised.ResultsA prioritisation grid was filled out for 583 patients. Ten and 36% of the grids included at least one DK box checked by the physicians and the nurses, respectively. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were eligible for MR according to the physicians, 11% according to the nurses, for a total of 130 patients. Fifty-six MR were performed in 15 different HU, which represented 43% of the identified patients, with an average of 1 hour per MR of the pharmacist’s time. The number of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD) was 1.2/patient.ConclusionThis grid seems to be adapted to the prioritisation of MR, because 24% and 11% of the patients had a score ≥10. It identified the need for MR in a large number of HU, which is the originality of our MR activity. All the priority MR could not be performed because of early release/death of patients or lack of time. The low rate of patients at risk and the high rate of DK checked by nurses suggests that nurses under-evaluate this risk. Physicians seem to have a better understanding of the patients and treatment. The MR of patients at risk made it possible to identify a number of UMD similar to that found in other French studies.No conflict of interest |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.316 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7535792</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2010328288</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b2096-b9c1e78f945036f6e59f2d9ea6fa43030c668c97e76d00b979d055feff1a8d433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctqHDEQRRsTg81k_kHY63b0aL02gTA4cWAggdhroe4ujTSefkStNnhnL_yj_pJoMvZANlmpRN06dYtbFBcEXxHCxCfY-tHb2JUUE1WC9WMz9O6KEXFSnFNcyVJrUX041lycFctpCjXmjCldMX1ePFern79KSsXr08v1g93NNoWhR4NDFiUbN5CgRR20oTk0IuQdTdiFwzf0aMwV9GlCNqHkAfmw8TAlFMN0j2zbhbRHJB-HeeP_KqCDDO6bRzT3IX0sTp3dTbB8exfF3dfr29VNuf7x7fvqy7qsKdairHVDQCqnK46ZcAK4drTVYIWzFcMMN0KoRkuQosW41lK3mHMHzhGr2oqxRfH5wB3nOh_UZM_R7swYQ2fjoxlsMP92-uDNZngwkjMuNc2AyzdAHH7P-USzHebYZ8-Gck6l4LIi_1VhghlVVKms4gdV3W2PFgg2-1zNe677AWXeczU5V_YHz3mexg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2010328288</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Mondoloni, P ; Donier, L ; Gougeard, A ; Renzullo, C ; Leroy, B ; Penaud, JF ; Coutet, J</creator><creatorcontrib>Mondoloni, P ; Donier, L ; Gougeard, A ; Renzullo, C ; Leroy, B ; Penaud, JF ; Coutet, J</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MR) makes it possible to identify medication errors. Because it is labour-intensive, it is often limited to certain specific hospital units (HU).PurposeThe goal of this study was to evaluate a MR activity targeting patients at the highest risk admitted to the emergency unit.Material and methodsA single-centre prospective study was performed for 6 months in patients hospitalised through the emergency unit. Emergency unit physicians or nurses would fill in a prioritisation grid of MR including 10 clinical and therapeutic factors. This grid, which was based on a bibliographic study and a prior internal study, included a box « don’t know » (DK) for every factor. A pharmacist collected the grids daily and calculated the risk score of each patient: in the case of a score ≥10, a pharmacist performed a MR of the patient in the unit where s/he was hospitalised.ResultsA prioritisation grid was filled out for 583 patients. Ten and 36% of the grids included at least one DK box checked by the physicians and the nurses, respectively. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were eligible for MR according to the physicians, 11% according to the nurses, for a total of 130 patients. Fifty-six MR were performed in 15 different HU, which represented 43% of the identified patients, with an average of 1 hour per MR of the pharmacist’s time. The number of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD) was 1.2/patient.ConclusionThis grid seems to be adapted to the prioritisation of MR, because 24% and 11% of the patients had a score ≥10. It identified the need for MR in a large number of HU, which is the originality of our MR activity. All the priority MR could not be performed because of early release/death of patients or lack of time. The low rate of patients at risk and the high rate of DK checked by nurses suggests that nurses under-evaluate this risk. Physicians seem to have a better understanding of the patients and treatment. The MR of patients at risk made it possible to identify a number of UMD similar to that found in other French studies.No conflict of interest</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.316</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Nurses ; Patients ; Pharmacists ; Physicians ; Reconciliation ; Section 4: Clinical pharmacy services</subject><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2018-03, Vol.25 (Suppl 1), p.A146-A147</ispartof><rights>2018, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Copyright: 2018 © 2018, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2018 2018, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2018, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7535792/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7535792/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27915,27916,53782,53784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mondoloni, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donier, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gougeard, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renzullo, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penaud, JF</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coutet, J</creatorcontrib><title>4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MR) makes it possible to identify medication errors. Because it is labour-intensive, it is often limited to certain specific hospital units (HU).PurposeThe goal of this study was to evaluate a MR activity targeting patients at the highest risk admitted to the emergency unit.Material and methodsA single-centre prospective study was performed for 6 months in patients hospitalised through the emergency unit. Emergency unit physicians or nurses would fill in a prioritisation grid of MR including 10 clinical and therapeutic factors. This grid, which was based on a bibliographic study and a prior internal study, included a box « don’t know » (DK) for every factor. A pharmacist collected the grids daily and calculated the risk score of each patient: in the case of a score ≥10, a pharmacist performed a MR of the patient in the unit where s/he was hospitalised.ResultsA prioritisation grid was filled out for 583 patients. Ten and 36% of the grids included at least one DK box checked by the physicians and the nurses, respectively. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were eligible for MR according to the physicians, 11% according to the nurses, for a total of 130 patients. Fifty-six MR were performed in 15 different HU, which represented 43% of the identified patients, with an average of 1 hour per MR of the pharmacist’s time. The number of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD) was 1.2/patient.ConclusionThis grid seems to be adapted to the prioritisation of MR, because 24% and 11% of the patients had a score ≥10. It identified the need for MR in a large number of HU, which is the originality of our MR activity. All the priority MR could not be performed because of early release/death of patients or lack of time. The low rate of patients at risk and the high rate of DK checked by nurses suggests that nurses under-evaluate this risk. Physicians seem to have a better understanding of the patients and treatment. The MR of patients at risk made it possible to identify a number of UMD similar to that found in other French studies.No conflict of interest</description><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmacists</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Reconciliation</subject><subject>Section 4: Clinical pharmacy services</subject><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctqHDEQRRsTg81k_kHY63b0aL02gTA4cWAggdhroe4ujTSefkStNnhnL_yj_pJoMvZANlmpRN06dYtbFBcEXxHCxCfY-tHb2JUUE1WC9WMz9O6KEXFSnFNcyVJrUX041lycFctpCjXmjCldMX1ePFern79KSsXr08v1g93NNoWhR4NDFiUbN5CgRR20oTk0IuQdTdiFwzf0aMwV9GlCNqHkAfmw8TAlFMN0j2zbhbRHJB-HeeP_KqCDDO6bRzT3IX0sTp3dTbB8exfF3dfr29VNuf7x7fvqy7qsKdairHVDQCqnK46ZcAK4drTVYIWzFcMMN0KoRkuQosW41lK3mHMHzhGr2oqxRfH5wB3nOh_UZM_R7swYQ2fjoxlsMP92-uDNZngwkjMuNc2AyzdAHH7P-USzHebYZ8-Gck6l4LIi_1VhghlVVKms4gdV3W2PFgg2-1zNe677AWXeczU5V_YHz3mexg</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>Mondoloni, P</creator><creator>Donier, L</creator><creator>Gougeard, A</creator><creator>Renzullo, C</creator><creator>Leroy, B</creator><creator>Penaud, JF</creator><creator>Coutet, J</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit</title><author>Mondoloni, P ; Donier, L ; Gougeard, A ; Renzullo, C ; Leroy, B ; Penaud, JF ; Coutet, J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b2096-b9c1e78f945036f6e59f2d9ea6fa43030c668c97e76d00b979d055feff1a8d433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmacists</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Reconciliation</topic><topic>Section 4: Clinical pharmacy services</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mondoloni, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donier, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gougeard, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renzullo, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leroy, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penaud, JF</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coutet, J</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mondoloni, P</au><au>Donier, L</au><au>Gougeard, A</au><au>Renzullo, C</au><au>Leroy, B</au><au>Penaud, JF</au><au>Coutet, J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A146</spage><epage>A147</epage><pages>A146-A147</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MR) makes it possible to identify medication errors. Because it is labour-intensive, it is often limited to certain specific hospital units (HU).PurposeThe goal of this study was to evaluate a MR activity targeting patients at the highest risk admitted to the emergency unit.Material and methodsA single-centre prospective study was performed for 6 months in patients hospitalised through the emergency unit. Emergency unit physicians or nurses would fill in a prioritisation grid of MR including 10 clinical and therapeutic factors. This grid, which was based on a bibliographic study and a prior internal study, included a box « don’t know » (DK) for every factor. A pharmacist collected the grids daily and calculated the risk score of each patient: in the case of a score ≥10, a pharmacist performed a MR of the patient in the unit where s/he was hospitalised.ResultsA prioritisation grid was filled out for 583 patients. Ten and 36% of the grids included at least one DK box checked by the physicians and the nurses, respectively. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were eligible for MR according to the physicians, 11% according to the nurses, for a total of 130 patients. Fifty-six MR were performed in 15 different HU, which represented 43% of the identified patients, with an average of 1 hour per MR of the pharmacist’s time. The number of unintended medication discrepancies (UMD) was 1.2/patient.ConclusionThis grid seems to be adapted to the prioritisation of MR, because 24% and 11% of the patients had a score ≥10. It identified the need for MR in a large number of HU, which is the originality of our MR activity. All the priority MR could not be performed because of early release/death of patients or lack of time. The low rate of patients at risk and the high rate of DK checked by nurses suggests that nurses under-evaluate this risk. Physicians seem to have a better understanding of the patients and treatment. The MR of patients at risk made it possible to identify a number of UMD similar to that found in other French studies.No conflict of interest</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.316</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2047-9956 |
ispartof | European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2018-03, Vol.25 (Suppl 1), p.A146-A147 |
issn | 2047-9956 2047-9964 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7535792 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Nurses Patients Pharmacists Physicians Reconciliation Section 4: Clinical pharmacy services |
title | 4CPS-226 Evaluation of a targeted medication reconciliation in patients at the highest risk admitted through the emergency unit |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T22%3A14%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=4CPS-226%E2%80%85Evaluation%20of%20a%20targeted%20medication%20reconciliation%20in%20patients%20at%20the%20highest%20risk%20admitted%20through%20the%20emergency%20unit&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Mondoloni,%20P&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A146&rft.epage=A147&rft.pages=A146-A147&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-eahpconf.316&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2010328288%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2010328288&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |