Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study

Adverse Drug Events Clinical Trial

— MARQUIS  

Official title:

Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01337063
• Other study ID #: 2010P001814
• Secondary ID: 1R18HS019598
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: April 15, 2011
• Last updated: November 11, 2015
• Start date: March 2011
• Est. completion date: September 2014

Study information

• Verified date: November 2015
• Source: Brigham and Women's Hospital
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Patients often have problems after they leave the hospital, in part because errors are made in the medications they are prescribed. The goal of this project is to develop a more accurate and safe medication prescription process when patients enter and leave the hospital and implement this process at six U.S. hospitals. The investigators will measure the success of the project and develop lessons learned so this process can be applied to other hospitals.

Description:

Unintentional medication discrepancies during transitions in care (such as hospitalization and subsequent discharge) are very common and represent a major threat to patient safety. One solution to this problem is medication reconciliation. In response to Joint Commission requirements, most hospitals have developed medication reconciliation processes, but some have been more successful than others, and there are reports of pro-forma compliance without substantial improvements in patient safety. There is now collective experience about effective approaches to medication reconciliation, but these have yet to be consolidated, evaluated rigorously, and disseminated effectively.

This project's findings should provide valuable lessons to all hospitals regarding the best ways to design and implement medication reconciliation interventions to improve medication safety during transitions in care.

SPECIFIC AIMS:

Aim 1: Develop a toolkit consolidating the best practice recommendations for medication reconciliation

Aim 2: Conduct a multi-center mentored quality improvement project in which each site adapts the tools for its own environment and implements them

Aim 3: Assess the effects of a mentored medication reconciliation quality improvement intervention on unintentional medication discrepancies with potential for patient harm

Aim 4: Conduct rigorous program evaluation to determine the most important components of a medication reconciliation program and how best to implement it

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 1836
• Est. completion date: September 2014
• Est. primary completion date: September 2014
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Age 18 and over

• Admitted to inpatient medical or surgical services

Exclusion Criteria:

• Vulnerable populations (pregnant women, prisoners, institutionalized individuals)

• Under 18 years

Hospital staff subjects:

• Personnel directly involved in the medication reconciliation process, which depending on the site might include residents, physician assistants, inpatient attending physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians.

Study Design

Allocation: Non-Randomized, Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Health Services Research

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Adverse Drug Events
• Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
• Medication Administered in Error

Intervention

Other:
• Mentored medication reconciliation quality improvement
Based on expert recommendations from a recent conference on medication reconciliation sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine and funded by AHRQ, investigators will engage a steering committee and conduct a second conference to operationalize these recommendations into a set of "best practice" guidelines, standards, and tools to be adapted by each of 6 participating sites. After training mentors and developing data collection tools, a mentored quality improvement project will be conducted for 21 months, in which each site works to improve medication reconciliation using the toolkit and with mentorship in the form of two site visits and monthly phone calls.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Presbyterian Hospital	Charlotte	North Carolina
United States	University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics	Chicago	Illinois
United States	Emory Johns Creek Hospital	Johns Creek	Georgia
United States	University of California, San Francisco	San Francisco	California
United States	Sioux Falls VA Medical Center	Sioux Falls	South Dakota
United States	Baystate Health	Springfield	Massachusetts

Sponsors (10)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Brigham and Women's Hospital	Baystate Health, Emory Johns Creek Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, Charlotte, Sioux Falls VA Medical Center, Society of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, University of Chicago, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Vanderbilt University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (29)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CAHPS Hospital Survey (H-CAHPS) 2009; https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/content/products/HOSP/PROD_HOSP_Intro.asp?p=1022&s=221. Accessed January 15, 2010.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. 2009; http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/patientsafetyculture/hospsurvindex.htm. Accessed January 10, 2010.

Bazeley P. Computerized data analysis for mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.

Brown C, Lilford R. Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety. BMJ. 2008 Dec 17;337:a2764. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2764. — View Citation

Cochrane Collaboration. Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Methods Paper: Including interrupted time series (ITS) designs in a EPOC review. 1998.

Coffey M, Cornish P, Koonthanam T, Etchells E, Matlow A. Implementation of admission medication reconciliation at two academic health sciences centres: challenges and success factors. Healthc Q. 2009;12 Spec No Patient:102-9. — View Citation

Coleman EA, Smith JD, Raha D, Min SJ. Posthospital medication discrepancies: prevalence and contributing factors. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Sep 12;165(16):1842-7. — View Citation

Cornish PL, Knowles SR, Marchesano R, Tam V, Shadowitz S, Juurlink DN, Etchells EE. Unintended medication discrepancies at the time of hospital admission. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 28;165(4):424-9. — View Citation

Doyle E. Medication reconciliation done right. Today's Hospitalist. September 2009.

Dumas JE, Lynch AM, Laughlin JE, Phillips Smith E, Prinz RJ. Promoting intervention fidelity. Conceptual issues, methods, and preliminary results from the EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Jan;20(1 Suppl):38-47. — View Citation

Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, Kettis-Lindblad A, Melhus H, Mörlin C. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 11;169(9):894-900. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.71. — View Citation

Glasser B, Strauss A. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Adeline; 1967.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Medication Reconciliation Review. 2007; http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/PatientSafety/MedicationSystems/Tools/Medication+Reconciliation+Review.htm. Accessed January 7, 2010.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation Program: Hospital 2011 National Patient Safety Goals; http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/2011_NPSGs_HAP.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2011.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Joint Commission Fact Sheets: Facts about the tracer methodology. 2006; http://www.jointcommission.org/AboutUs/Fact_Sheets/Tracer_Methodology.htm. Accessed January 15, 2010.

Kivimaki M, Elovainio M. A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1999;72:241-246.

Koehler BE, Richter KM, Youngblood L, Cohen BA, Prengler ID, Cheng D, Masica AL. Reduction of 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit rates in high-risk elderly medical patients through delivery of a targeted care bundle. J Hosp Med. 2009 Apr;4(4):211-8. doi: 10.1002/jhm.427. — View Citation

Midlöv P, Deierborg E, Holmdahl L, Höglund P, Eriksson T. Clinical outcomes from the use of Medication Report when elderly patients are discharged from hospital. Pharm World Sci. 2008 Dec;30(6):840-5. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9236-1. Epub 2008 Jul 25. — View Citation

Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1994.

Parry C, Mahoney E, Chalmers SA, Coleman EA. Assessing the quality of transitional care: further applications of the care transitions measure. Med Care. 2008 Mar;46(3):317-22. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181589bdc. — View Citation

Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.

Pippins JR, Gandhi TK, Hamann C, Ndumele CD, Labonville SA, Diedrichsen EK, Carty MG, Karson AS, Bhan I, Coley CM, Liang CL, Turchin A, McCarthy PC, Schnipper JL. Classifying and predicting errors of inpatient medication reconciliation. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Sep;23(9):1414-22. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0687-9. Epub 2008 Jun 19. — View Citation

Schnipper JL, Hamann C, Ndumele CD, Liang CL, Carty MG, Karson AS, Bhan I, Coley CM, Poon E, Turchin A, Labonville SA, Diedrichsen EK, Lipsitz S, Broverman CA, McCarthy P, Gandhi TK. Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation application and process redesign on potential adverse drug events: a cluster-randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Apr 27;169(8):771-80. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.51. — View Citation

Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, Wahlstrom SA, Brown BA, Tarvin E, Kachalia A, Horng M, Roy CL, McKean SC, Bates DW. Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 13;166(5):565-71. — View Citation

Schnipper JL, Roumie CL, Cawthon C, Businger A, Dalal AK, Mugalla I, Eden S, Jacobson TA, Rask KJ, Vaccarino V, Gandhi TK, Bates DW, Johnson DC, Labonville S, Gregory D, Kripalani S; PILL-CVD Study Group. Rationale and design of the Pharmacist Intervention for Low Literacy in Cardiovascular Disease (PILL-CVD) study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Mar;3(2):212-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.921833. — View Citation

Strauss A, Corbin. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.

Tam VC, Knowles SR, Cornish PL, Fine N, Marchesano R, Etchells EE. Frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at admission to hospital: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):510-5. Review. — View Citation

Vira T, Colquhoun M, Etchells E. Reconcilable differences: correcting medication errors at hospital admission and discharge. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Apr;15(2):122-6. — View Citation

Wortman SB. Medication reconciliation in a community, nonteaching hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008 Nov 1;65(21):2047-54. doi: 10.2146/ajhp080091. Review. — View Citation

* Note: There are 29 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	The primary outcome will be unintentional medication discrepancies in admission orders and discharge orders with potential for patient harm	The primary outcome will be determined by a study pharmacist who will take a "gold standard" medication history on 5 patients per week, then compare that history to the medical team's medication history, to admission orders, and to discharge orders. Any unintentional medication discrepancies in orders will be recorded. A physician adjudicator will then make a final determination regarding whether an error occurred, the type of error, the potential for patient harm, and the potential severity.	6 months prior to implementation of intervention to 21 months during intervention	Yes
Secondary	Patient satisfaction	Patient Satisfaction will be assessed using data from the HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey. This survey is already administered to a sample of patients from all hospitals; we will measure both global satisfaction and questions related to medications (e.g., "before giving you any new medications, how often did hospital staff tell you what the medicine was for," and "before giving you any new medications, how often did hospital staff describe possible site effects in a way you could understand.")	6 months prior to implementation of intervention to 21 months during intervention	No
Secondary	Administrative outcomes	Emergency Department (ED) or hospital readmission to the same institution within 30 days of discharge, using computerized hospital records of all eligible patients.	6 months prior to implementation of intervention to 21 months during intervention	No
Secondary	Total medication discrepancies	As with Outcome 1, but without adjudication for potential for harm	6 months prior to implementation of intervention to 21 months during intervention	Yes