No / Many studies have highlighted the problems associated with different aspects of medicines reconciliation (MR). These have been followed by numerous recommendations of good practice shown in published studies to decrease error; however, there is little to suggest that practice has significantly changed. The study reported here was conducted to review local medicines reconciliation practice and compare it to data within previously published evidence. To determine current medicines reconciliation practice in four acute hospitals (A–D) in one region of the United Kingdom and compare it to published best practices. Quantitative data on key indicators were collected prospectively from medical wards in the four hospitals using a proforma compiled from existing literature and previous, validated audits. Data were collected on: i) time between admission and MR being undertaken; ii) time to conduct MR; iii) number and type of sources used to ascertain current medication; and iv) number, type and potential severity of unintended discrepancies. The potential severity of the discrepancies was retrospectively dually rated in 10% of the sample using a professional panel. Of the 250 charts reviewed (54 Hospital A, 61 Hospital B, 69 Hospital C, 66 Hospital D), 37.6% (92/245) of patients experienced at least one discrepancy on their drug chart, with the majority of these being omissions (237/413, 57.1%). A total of 413 discrepancies were discovered, an overall mean of 1.69 (413/245) discrepancies per patient. The number of sources used to reconcile medicines varied with 36.8% (91/247) only using one source of information and the patient being used as a source in less than half of all medicines reconciliations (45.7%, 113/247). In three out of the four hospitals the discrepancies were most frequently categorized as potentially requiring increased monitoring or intervention. This study shows higher rates of unintended discrepancies per patient than those in previous studies, with omission being the most frequently occurring type of discrepancy. None of the four centers adhered to current UK guidance on medicines reconciliation. All four centers demonstrated a strong reliance on General Practitioner (GP)-based sources. A minority of discrepancies had the potential to cause injury to patients and to increase utilization of health care resources. There is a need to review current practice and procedures at transitions in care to improve the accuracy of medication history-taking at admission by doctors and to encourage pharmacy staff to use an increased number of sources to validate the medication history. Although early research indicates that safety can be improved through patient involvement, this study found that patients were not involved in the majority of reconciliation encounters.

Background, aim and objectives: Evaluating quality of care is essential when redesigning or improving practice. Medicines reconciliation (MR) on hospital admission is now policy in the UK. It is the process of obtaining an up-to-date and accurate medication list and documenting any discrepancies. The overall aim of this work was to develop quality indicators to evaluate MR on admission to hospital; the specific objectives include developing MR quality indicators, achieving consensus on their appropriateness and testing their feasibility by applying them in a hospital setting. Design: The study was designed in three parts, each consisting of three steps. In part I, ideas about potential indicators were obtained from two sources: a literature search and the nominal group technique. These ideas were converted to potential indicators using criteria for good indicators and then reviewed by nine reviewers. Part II was designed to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of the indicators to evaluate MR. It involved pre-piloting, piloting and conducting the main two-round online Delphi study. Several methods were used to approach predefined experts. Part III involved applying in hospital settings those MR indicators that had achieved consensus. It included developing operational definitions and directly observing the MR process as conducted by pharmacy staff in two hospitals. The indicators were further tested by collecting data about the MR process for all patients seen by pharmacy staff on one weekday in the two hospitals. Results: A systematic approach was followed to develop MR indicators. The idea generation step produced over 90 ideas about potential indicators, which were converted to 85 MR indicators. The assessment by the nine practicing hospital pharmacists discarded 29 of them and the remaining 56 MR indicators were carried forward to the Delphi study, during which 41 indicators achieved consensus as appropriate for evaluating MR on admission to hospital. In the feasibility study, 5 MR indicators were found not to be feasible and three not adequately assessed, while 33 indicators were considered feasible to be used in a hospital setting. Conclusions: This work provided a novel list of 33 indicators that achieved consensus and were found to be feasible to evaluate the MR process on admission to hospital. Further research should explore the use of these indicators, among others, to assess and improve the overall quality of care provided to patients on admission and throughout the hospitalization journey.

This study aimed to evaluate the use of a shared electronic primary health care record (EHR) to assist with medicines reconciliation in the hospital from admission to discharge. Methods: This is a prospective cross-sectional, comparison evaluation for 2 phases, in a short-term elderly admissions ward in the United Kingdom. In phase 1, full reconciliation of the medication history was attempted, using conventional methods, before accessing the EHR, and then the EHR was used to verify the reconciliation. In phase 2, the EHR was the initial method of retrieving the medication history-validated by conventional methods. Results: Where reconciliation was led by conventional methods, and before any access to the EHR was attempted, 28 (28%) of hospital prescriptions were found to contain errors. Of 99 prescriptions subsequently checked using the EHR, only 50 (50%) matched the EHR. Of the remainder, 25% of prescriptions contained errors when verified by the EHR. However, 26% of patients had an incorrect list of current medications on the EHR. Using the EHR as the primary method of reconciliation, 33 (32%) of 102 prescriptions matched the EHR. Of those that did not match, 39 (38%) of prescriptions were found to contain errors. Furthermore, 37 (36%) of patients had an incorrect list of current medications on the EHR. The most common error type on the discharge prescription was drug omission; and on the EHR, wrong drug. Common potentially serious errors were related to unidentified allergies and adverse drug reactions. Conclusions: The EHR can reduce medication errors. However, the EHR should be seen as one of a range of information sources for reconciliation; the primary source being the patient or their carer. Both primary care and hospital clinicians should have read-and-write access to the EHR to reduce errors at care transitions. We recommend further evaluation studies.

Medication safety and improving communication at care transitions are an international priority. There is vast evidence on the scale of error associated with medicines reconciliation and some evidence of successful interventions to improve reconciliation. However, there is insufficient evidence on the factors that contribute towards medication error at transitions, or the roles of those involved. This thesis examined current UK medicines reconciliation practice within primary and secondary care, and the role of HCPs and patients. Using a mixed-method, multi-centre design, the type and severity of discrepancies at admission to hospital were established and staff undertaking medicines reconciliation across secondary and primary care were observed, using evidence-informed framework, based on a narrative literature review. The overall processes used to reconcile medicines were similar; however, there was considerable inter and intra-organisational variation within primary and secondary care practice. Patients were not routinely involved in discussions about their medication, despite their capacity to do so. Various human factors in reconciliation-related errors were apparent; predominantly inadequate communication, individual factors e.g. variation in approach by HCP, and patient factors e.g. lack of capacity. Areas of good practice which could reduce medicines reconciliation-related errors/discrepancies were identified. There is a need for increased consistency and standardisation of medicines reconciliationrelated policy, procedures and documentation, alongside communication optimisation. This could be achieved through a standardised definition and taxonomy of error, the development of a medicines reconciliation quality assessment framework, increased undergraduate and post-graduate education, improved patient engagement, better utilisation of information technology and improved safety culture.

Medication safety and improving communication at care transitions are an international priority. There is vast evidence on the scale of error associated with medicines reconciliation and some evidence of successful interventions to improve reconciliation. However, there is insufficient evidence on the factors that contribute towards medication error at transitions, or the roles of those involved. This thesis examined current UK medicines reconciliation practice within primary and secondary care, and the role of HCPs and patients. Using a mixed-method, multi-centre design, the type and severity of discrepancies at admission to hospital were established and staff undertaking medicines reconciliation across secondary and primary care were observed, using evidence-informed framework, based on a narrative literature review. The overall processes used to reconcile medicines were similar; however, there was considerable inter and intra-organisational variation within primary and secondary care practice. Patients were not routinely involved in discussions about their medication, despite their capacity to do so. Various human factors in reconciliation-related errors were apparent; predominantly inadequate communication, individual factors e.g. variation in approach by HCP, and patient factors e.g. lack of capacity. Areas of good practice which could reduce medicines reconciliation-related errors/discrepancies were identified. There is a need for increased consistency and standardisation of medicines reconciliationrelated policy, procedures and documentation, alongside communication optimisation. This could be achieved through a standardised definition and taxonomy of error, the development of a medicines reconciliation quality assessment framework, increased undergraduate and post-graduate education, improved patient engagement, better utilisation of information technology and improved safety culture.