An electronic tool for health systems to assess and communicate discharge medication access

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe how the discharge medication cost inquiry (DMCI) consult order and workflow were created and used to communicate transition of care needs and medication access barriers before discharge. Summary Health-system pharmacists collaborated with the information technology department to develop the DMCI consult order and workflow. This institutional review board–approved retrospective case study evaluated use of the DMCI consult order throughout the health system. Outcomes that could not be retrieved electronically were collected for every third patient encounter using manual chart review. The DMCI consult order was used at each hospital in the health system. Physicians placed the most DMCI consult orders; however, pharmacists at the large academic tertiary hospital utilized the DMCI consult order the most. The DMCI consult order was sent most frequently for anticoagulants. Although most medications were covered by insurance, the tool and workflow identified barriers to medication access. Almost 90% of the patients with a DMCI consult order had at least one prescription generated on discharge. Conclusion The DMCI consult order is a novel electronic tool to aid in communicating discharge medication needs. When incorporated into care transition planning, the DMCI consult order and workflow provide a model to ensure patients have access to medications. It can also be used to document and evaluate the role of pharmacy in transitions of care in the health system.

Evaluation of An Inpatient Pharmacy Consult on Discharge Medications in Bariatric Surgery Patients

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of an inpatient pharmacy consult on discharge medications following bariatric surgery. Methods: A pharmacy consult for discharge medication review for bariatric surgery patients was instituted at an academic medical center. The intervention included conducting a medication history, reviewing home medications for updates post-bariatric surgery, creating and documenting a discharge medication plan, and providing patient education. The impact of the intervention was evaluated by comparing medication classes, doses, and formulations prescribed during the intervention relative to a historical control group. Results: The study included 85 patients who received pharmacist intervention and 167 patients who did not receive pharmacist intervention following bariatric surgery. The prescription of an extended-release medication at discharge in the intervention group was reduced by 19.3% (28.7% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.0005). For patients on hypertension medications, 94.0% had their regimen reduced in the intervention group compared with 37.5% of patients in the control group (p < 0.001). Of patients on insulin at baseline, 87.5% of patients in the intervention group had dose reductions at discharge vs. 66.7% of patients in the control group (p = 0.37). No patients in the intervention group were discharged with oral antihyperglycemic medications or non-insulin injectable medications vs. 33.3% (p = 0.12) and 20.0% (p = 0.47), respectively, in the control group. Readmission rates at 30 days were insignificantly lower in the intervention group (3.5% vs. 4.2%, p = 1). Conclusions: Clinical pharmacist involvement in the discharge medication reconciliation process for bariatric surgery patients reduced prescribing of unadjusted medication classes, doses, and drug formulations.

What Happens after Hospital Discharge? Deficiencies in Medication Management Encountered by Geriatric Patients with Polypharmacy

This study aimed to describe post-discharge medication self-management by geriatric patients with polypharmacy, to describe the problems encountered and to determine the related factors. In a multicenter study from November 2019 to March 2020, data were collected at hospital discharge and two to five days post-discharge. Geriatric patients with polypharmacy were questioned about medication management using a combination of validated (MedMaIDE) and self-developed questionnaires. Of 400 participants, 70% did self-manage medication post-discharge. Patients had a mean of four different deficiencies in post-discharge medication management (SD 2.17, range 0–10). Knowledge-related deficiencies were most common. The number of medicines and the in-hospital provision of medication management by nurses were significant predictors of post-discharge medication management deficiencies. In addition to deficiencies in knowledge, medication-taking ability and obtaining medication, non-adherence and disrupted continuity of medication self-management were common in geriatric patients with polypharmacy post-discharge. Improvements in in-hospital preparation could avoid medication self-management problems at home.

Impact of clinical decision support therapeutic interchanges on hospital discharge medication omissions and duplications

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Automatic therapeutic substitution (ATS) protocols are formulary tools that allow for provider-selected interchange from a nonformulary preadmission medication to a formulary equivalent. Previous studies have demonstrated that the application of clinical decision support (CDS) tools to ATS can decrease ATS errors at admission, but there are limited data describing the impact of CDS on discharge errors. The objective of this study was to describe the impact of CDS-supported interchanges on discharge prescription duplications or omissions. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic medical center. Patients admitted between June 2017 and August 2019 were included if they were 18 years or older at admission, underwent an ATS protocol–approved interchange for 1 of the 9 included medication classes, and had a completed discharge medication reconciliation. The primary outcome was difference in incidence of therapeutic duplication or omission at discharge between the periods before and after CDS implementation. Results A total of 737 preimplementation encounters and 733 postimplementation encounters were included. CDS did not significantly decrease the incidence of discharge duplications or omissions (12.1% vs 11.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –2.3% to 4.2%) nor the incidence of admission duplication or inappropriate reconciliation (21.4% vs 20.7%; 95% CI, –3.4% to 4.8%) when comparing the pre- and postimplementation periods. Inappropriate reconciliation was the primary cause of discharge medication errors for both groups. Conclusion CDS implementation was not associated with a decrease in discharge omissions, duplications, or inappropriate reconciliation. Findings highlight the need for thoughtful medication reconciliation at the point of discharge.

Diabetes Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Discharge

Background: During hospital discharge, patients are at high risk for medication discrepancies as they transition from hospital to home. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of medication errors at hospital discharge for diabetes medications in patients who received an endocrinology consultation for diabetes and explore interventions to improve the accuracy of discharge medication reconciliation. Methods: All patients (n=3018) who received an endocrinology consultation for diabetes at a tertiary care medical center from October 2017 to December 2019 were included. A retrospective chart review was performed to collect the following information on each patient: primary service from which the patient was discharged, hospital site, month and year of discharge date, and whether each patient’s medication reconciliation for diabetes medications at hospital discharge was in agreement with the inpatient diabetes team’s recommendations. Patients who were discharged on medications discordant from those recommended by the inpatient diabetes service were subcategorized into three groups: 1) one medication incorrect 2) more than one medication incorrect and 3) the primary service did not notify the consult team of patient’s discharge or request final recommendations for diabetes medications prior to discharge. Based on the findings of this study, an educational intervention was implemented in November 2019 to the Hospital Medicine services regarding diabetes discharge medication reconciliation. Results: Of the 3018 patients who received an endocrinology consultation for diabetes at a tertiary university medical center, 2279 patients (76%) were discharged on correct medications, 165 patients (5%) were discharged with one incorrect medication, 443 patients (15%) were discharged with more than one incorrect medication, and 121 patients (4%) were discharged without final discharge recommendations from the diabetes service. There was no significant variation based on discharging service or month of the year. After an educational intervention was implemented in November 2019 to the Hospital Medicine service on the existence and use of a comprehensive diabetes discharge order set, the percentage of patients discharged on correct medications improved to 92% (11/12 patients) compared to prior 81% (44/54 patients). Conclusion: Despite detailed discharge medication recommendations including patient education detailing the recommended regimen by the endocrinology diabetes service, a significant number of patients were discharged by providers across all services on diabetes medications discrepant with the diabetes service’s recommendations. Educational efforts improved the rate of correct medications at discharge on the Hospital Medicine service, and additional educational interventions with other services may be helpful in improving medication reconciliation accuracy.

Erratum to: Pharmacist-Led Discharge Medication Counseling and its Corresponding Impact on Medication Adherence and Hospital Readmission Rates

This article has been retracted https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v11i3.3352. Please see INNOVATIONS in pharmacy retraction policy (https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/policies). The authors and editors have agreed to voluntarily retract the article due to allegations of erroneous use of an assessment tool.

Variation in Antithrombotic Therapy and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Preexisting Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background: Optimal antithrombotic management of patients with preexisting atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement is challenging given the need to balance the risk of bleeding and thromboembolism. We aimed to examine variation in care and association of antithrombotic therapies with 1-year outcomes of stroke, bleeding, and mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant atrial fibrillation in the United States. Methods: Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with preexisting atrial fibrillation from November 2011 through September 2015 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry linked to the Medicare database were examined according to receipt of oral anticoagulants (OACs) or antiplatelet therapies (APTs) or a combination of these (OAC+APT) at discharge. To assess the associations of antithrombotic therapies with 1-year outcomes of stroke, bleeding, and mortality, we utilized inverse probability weighting for antithrombotic therapies and multivariable regression modeling to adjust for patient- and hospital-level variables. Results: In the 11 382 patients included in our study, 5833 (51.2%) were discharged on OAC+APT, 4786 (42.0%) on APT alone, and 763 (6.7%) on OAC alone. There was significant variability in discharge medication patterns, including 42% of patients discharged without OAC therapy. In adjusted analyses, the risk for all-cause mortality and stroke was not significantly different when comparing the 3 different antithrombotic strategies. Risk of bleeding was higher with OAC+APT compared with APT alone (hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05–1.27]) and similar compared with OAC alone (hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.93–1.47]). Conclusions: There was significant variability in discharge medication patterns across US sites in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, including significant underuse of OAC in this high-risk cohort. The use of OAC+APT (versus OAC alone or APT alone) was not associated with a lower risk of stroke or mortality but was associated with increased risk of bleeding complications at 1 year compared with APT alone.

Impact of a Pharmacist Intervention in the Emergency Department on the Appropriateness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Prescribed in Venous Thromboembolism Patients

Background: It is now widely accepted to manage low risk acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the outpatient setting with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are straightforward to dose, they are high risk medications and not immune to medication errors. There is limited evidence that pharmacists’ intervention has an impact on DOAC discharge medication errors in the ED. Objective: To determine if pharmacist involvement reduced the rate of DOAC discharge medication errors in low risk VTE patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated a clinical pharmacy service implemented prior to the study. Included patients were evaluated in 2 groups: the cohort with pharmacist involvement and the cohort without pharmacist involvement. The primary outcome was the rate of anticoagulation medication errors. Results: A total of 58 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 14 had a pharmacist directly involved with their care in the ED while 44 patients did not. The rate of medication errors was lower when a pharmacist was involved, 7.1% (n = 1), compared to when a pharmacist was not involved, 36.4% (n = 16), (p = 0.046). All patients in the pharmacist involvement group received anticoagulation counseling prior to discharge compared to only 56.8% of patients in the non-pharmacist involvement group (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Our protocol for pharmacist involvement at the time of VTE diagnosis during an ED admission showed a reduced rate of anticoagulation medication errors when a pharmacist was involved. This benefit could potentially translate into improved outcomes such as readmission rates, patient safety outcomes, and hospitalizations.