Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T16:16:48.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

LO51: Incidence of clinically relevant medication errors after implementation of an electronic medication reconciliation process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2017

K.R. Stockton*
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
M.E. Wickham
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
S. Lai
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
K. Badke
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
D. Villanyi
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
V. Ho
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
K. Dahri
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
C.M. Hohl
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
*
*Corresponding authors

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Introduction: Medication discrepancies are unintended differences between a patient’s outpatient and inpatient medication regimens, and occur in up to 60% of hospital admissions. Canadian emergency departments (EDs) have implemented medication reconciliation forms that are pre-populated with outpatient medication dispensing data in order to reduce medication discrepancies and resultant adverse drug events. However, these forms may introduce errors of commission by prompting prescribers to reorder discontinued or potentially harmful medications. Our objective was to evaluate the incidence of medication discrepancies and errors of commission after the implementation of pre-populated medication reconciliation forms. Methods: This chart review included admitted patients who were enrolled in a parent study in which a research pharmacist prospectively collected best-possible medication histories (BPMHs) in the ED using all available information sources. Following discharge, research assistants uninvolved with the parent study compared medication orders documented within 48 h of admission with the BPMH to identify medication discrepancies and errors of commission. Errors of commission were defined as inappropriate continuations of medications and reordering discontinued medications. An independent panel adjudicated the clinical significance of the errors. We used regression methods to identify factors associated with errors. The sample size was limited by enrolment into the parent study. Results: Of 151 patients, 71 (47%; 95%CI 39.2-54.9) were exposed to 112 medication errors. Of these errors, 75.9% (85/112; 95%CI 67.1-82.9) were discrepancies, of which 18.8% (16/85; 95%CI 12.0-28.4) were clinically significant. Errors of commission made up 24.1% (27/112; 95%CI 17.3-32.8) of all errors, of which 37.0% (10/27; 95%CI 18.8-55.2) were clinically significant. Taking 8 or more medications was associated with a 5-fold greater odds of experiencing a medication error after controlling for confounders (OR 5.00; 95%CI 2.45-10.17; p<0.001). Conclusion: Clinically significant medication discrepancies and errors of commission remain common despite the implementation of electronically pre-populated medication reconciliation forms. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate whether using pre-populated medication reconciliation forms increases the risk of introducing errors of commission.

Type
Oral Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2017