Redmond Patrick, Grimes Tamasine C, McDonnell Ronan, Boland Fiona, Hughes Carmel, Fahey Tom
HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaux Lane House, Bow Lane, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 23;8(8):CD010791. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010791.pub2.
Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption.
To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome.
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome.
We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.
过渡性护理旨在为患者在不同护理阶段和环境之间转换时提供持续护理。据报道,护理转换时出现的用药差异很普遍,并且与药物不良事件(如再次住院)相关。用药核对是预防转换时用药错误的过程。核对包括列出一个人完整的用药清单,检查其准确性,核对并记录任何变化。尽管核对被认为是患者安全的关键方面,但对于实施核对的最有效方法仍缺乏共识和证据,有人呼吁在广泛采用之前加强证据基础。
评估与未接受用药核对的人相比,接受该干预措施的人在护理转换期间用药核对对用药差异、患者相关结局和医疗保健利用的影响。
我们于2018年1月18日检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、Embase、其他七个数据库以及两个试验注册库,并进行参考文献核对、引文检索、灰色文献检索以及与研究作者联系以识别其他研究。
我们仅纳入随机试验。符合条件的研究描述了符合医疗保健改进研究所用药核对定义的干预措施,该措施针对所有经历护理转换的患者,与该机构的标准护理相比。纳入的研究必须将用药差异作为一个结局进行报告。
两位综述作者独立筛选标题和摘要,评估研究的 eligibility,评估偏倚风险并提取数据。使用随机效应模型汇总研究特定的估计值,以得出效应的汇总估计值和95%置信区间(CI)。我们使用GRADE方法评估每个汇总结局的证据总体确定性。
我们识别出25项随机试验,涉及6995名参与者。所有研究均在八个国家的医院或直接相关环境中进行。23项研究以提供者为导向(由药剂师介导),两项为结构性研究(电子核对工具和病历变更)。20项研究的汇总结果比较了用药核对干预措施与至少存在一项用药差异的参与者的标准护理,显示风险比(RR)为0.53(95%CI 0.42至0.67;4629名参与者)。关于该结局的证据确定性非常低,因此用药核对减少差异的效果不确定。同样,核对对每位参与者报告的差异数量的影响也不确定(平均差(MD)-1.18,95%CI -2.58至0.23;4项研究;1963名参与者),以及其对每位参与者用药的用药差异数量的影响(RR 0.13,95%CI 0.01至1.29;2项研究;3595名参与者),因为这两个结局的证据确定性都非常低。由于现有证据的确定性非常低,核对对可预防的药物不良事件(PADEs)可能也几乎没有影响(RR 0.37,95%CI 0.09至1.57;3项研究;1253名参与者),其对药物不良事件(ADE)的影响同样不确定(RR 1.09,95%CI 0.91至1.30;4项研究;1363名参与者;低确定性证据)。干预措施对医疗保健利用影响的证据相互矛盾;单独报告时,它对计划外再次住院可能几乎没有影响(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.44至1.18;5项研究;1206名参与者;中等确定性证据),对医院利用的综合指标(急诊科就诊、再次住院RR 0.78,95%CI 0.50至1.22;4项研究;597名参与者;非常低确定性证据)的影响不确定。
由于证据确定性非常低,用药核对干预措施,尤其是药剂师介导的干预措施,对用药差异造成的影响尚不确定。干预措施对ADEs、PADEs和医疗保健利用等次要临床结局的影响也不明确。