Impact of Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting (PPMC) on Medication Discrepancies and Errors: A Pragmatic Evaluation of an Emergency Department-Based Process Redesign

12Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Medication errors are more prevalent in settings with acutely ill patients and heavy workloads, such as in an emergency department (ED). A pragmatic, controlled study compared partnered pharmacist medication charting (PPMC) (pharmacist-documented best-possible medication history [BPMH] followed by clinical discussion between a pharmacist and medical officer to co-develop a treatment plan and chart medications) with early BPMH (pharmacist-documented BPMH followed by medical officer-led traditional medication charting) and usual care (traditional medication charting approach without a pharmacist-collected BPMH in ED). Medication discrepancies were undocumented differences between medication charts and medication reconciliation. An expert panel assessed the discrepancies’ clinical significance, with ‘unintentional’ discrepancies deemed ‘errors’. Fewer patients in the PPMC group had at least one error (3.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1% to 5.8%) than in the early BPMH (49.4%; 95% CI: 42.5% to 56.3%) and usual care group (61.4%; 95% CI: 56.3% to 66.7%). The number of patients who need to be treated with PPMC to prevent at least one high/extreme error was 4.6 (95% CI: 3.4 to 6.9) and 4.0 (95% CI: 3.1 to 5.3) compared to the early BPMH and usual care group, respectively. PPMC within ED, incorporating interdisciplinary discussion, reduced clinically significant errors compared to early BPMH or usual care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Atey, T. M., Peterson, G. M., Salahudeen, M. S., Bereznicki, L. R., Simpson, T., Boland, C. M., … Wimmer, B. C. (2023). Impact of Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting (PPMC) on Medication Discrepancies and Errors: A Pragmatic Evaluation of an Emergency Department-Based Process Redesign. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021452

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free