Mekonnen Alemayehu B, McLachlan Andrew J, Brien Jo-Anne E
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
School of Pharmacy, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016 Apr;41(2):128-44. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12364. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
Medication reconciliation is recognized as an important tool for the prevention of medication discrepancies and subsequent patient harm at care transitions. However, there is inconclusive evidence as to the impact of medication reconciliation at hospital transitions overall, as well as pharmacy-led medication reconciliation services. This review sought to evaluate the impact of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions on medication discrepancies at hospital transitions and to categorize these interventions as single transition interventions or multiple transitions interventions.
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO databases, inclusive from inception to December 2014, were searched. Included studies were published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care and that aimed to assess medication discrepancies at hospital transitions. 'Usual care' was defined as any care where targeted medication reconciliation was not undertaken as an intervention, or if an intervention was conducted, it was not provided by a pharmacist/pharmacy technician.
Nineteen studies which involved a total of 15 525 adult patients were included. Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials. Overall, pharmacy-led medication reconciliation intervention usually revealed a trend towards reduction in medication discrepancies, compared with usual care. Seventeen studies involving 18 medication reconciliation interventions targeting the various transitions (admission, 9; discharge, 4; and multiple transitions, 5) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with usual care, single medication reconciliation interventions at transitions in care (either admission or discharge) showed a significant reduction of 66% in patients with medication discrepancies (RR 0·34; 95% CI: 0·23-0·50) in favour of the intervention. There was no difference between groups for interventions targeting multiple transitions (RR 0·88; 95% CI: 0·77-1·02). Subgroup analyses confined to RCTs showed that there were no differences for target of transition (admission vs. discharge), type of intervention (multifaceted intervention vs. medication reconciliation) and setting (single centre vs. multicentre), nor pharmacists vs. pharmacy technicians (non-RCTs only). Importantly, medication discrepancies of higher clinical impact were more easily identified through pharmacy-led interventions than with usual care.
Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation interventions were found to be an effective strategy to reduce medication discrepancies, and had a greater impact when conducted at either admission or discharge but were less effective during multiple transitions in care. Further studies that are designed to assess the impact of the involvement of pharmacy technicians in medication reconciliation are also needed.
用药核对被认为是预防用药差异以及在医疗转接过程中避免患者受到后续伤害的一项重要工具。然而,关于医院转接过程中用药核对的总体影响以及由药房主导的用药核对服务的影响,证据并不确凿。本综述旨在评估由药房主导的用药核对干预措施对医院转接过程中用药差异的影响,并将这些干预措施归类为单次转接干预或多次转接干预。
检索了PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、IPA、CINHAL和PsycINFO数据库,检索时间范围从建库至2014年12月。纳入的研究为英文发表的研究,这些研究比较了由药房主导的用药核对干预措施与常规护理的有效性,并且旨在评估医院转接过程中的用药差异。“常规护理”被定义为未将针对性的用药核对作为一项干预措施实施的任何护理,或者如果实施了一项干预措施,则该干预措施并非由药剂师/药房技术员提供。
共纳入19项研究,涉及15525名成年患者。其中11项研究为随机对照试验。总体而言,与常规护理相比,由药房主导的用药核对干预措施通常显示出用药差异有减少的趋势。17项涉及针对不同转接过程(入院,9项;出院,4项;以及多次转接,5项)的18种用药核对干预措施的研究被纳入荟萃分析。与常规护理相比,护理转接过程(入院或出院)中的单次用药核对干预措施使存在用药差异的患者显著减少了66%(风险比0.34;95%置信区间:0.23 - 0.50),表明干预措施更具优势。针对多次转接的干预措施在组间无差异(风险比0.88;95%置信区间:0.77 - 1.02)。限于随机对照试验的亚组分析表明,在转接目标(入院与出院)、干预类型(多方面干预与用药核对)、环境(单中心与多中心)方面均无差异,药剂师与药房技术员之间也无差异(仅针对非随机对照试验)。重要的是,与常规护理相比,通过由药房主导的干预措施更容易识别出具有更高临床影响的用药差异。
发现由药房主导的用药核对干预措施是减少用药差异的有效策略,在入院或出院时实施时影响更大,但在多次护理转接过程中效果较差。还需要进一步开展研究以评估药房技术员参与用药核对的影响。