A cross-sectional study of hospital pharmacists communicating medication changes at discharge
Authors: Bastian L , Hill A , Wilcock M 
Published: November 2023

Introduction

Medication discrepancies can happen at transitions of care and there are recognised problems with the content of discharge letters.1 We introduced a discharge medication reconciliation process that was shown to improve the quality of medication information in discharge summaries.2 This involves pharmacists recording any changes to patient’s medication in the electronic prescribing system during the inpatient stay and summarising these changes on discharge in a discharge medication reconciliation (DMR) note. Though this is part of routine clinical pharmacy practice we have not directly quantified these notes in comparison to standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records,3 nor have we examined which medication classes are commented upon by our pharmacists.

Aim

To characterise the type of medication changes that pharmacists describe and the classes of medication that warrants such attention.

Methods

A retrospective study of a purposive sample of 100 patient episodes where a DMR note was recorded at a 750-bed teaching district general hospital in England. We classified the text of the DMR note using the four categories (added, amended, on hold, and discontinued) in the eDischarge Summary Standard,3 plus four further categories. The actual medication named was categorised according to the main BNF therapeutic chapters. Data were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel. As this project falls under the definition of a service evaluation, according to UK NHS Research Ethics Committees, formal ethical approval was not required. This project was registered on the hospital’s clinical audit database.

Results

Data were extracted for 100 discharges from early 2023. The mean age was 70 years (range 12 to 96), and 40% were male. In total, 352 medicines were named in the DMR notes with 184 (52%) recorded as added, 41 (12%) amended, 32 (9%) on hold, and 42 (12%) discontinued. For 32 (9%) instances the DMR note specifically referred to continuation of medication; in 12 (3%) instances to monitoring required; and 22 (6%) instances fell into other category. For 33 (33%) of episodes there was a note indicating that no changes had been made to other pre-admission medication during the hospital stay. Of the medication attracting a DMR note, the main chapters were cardiovascular 162 (46%), gastrointestinal 45 (13%), central nervous system 40 (11%), and 28 (8%) each for infection and for blood and nutrition.

Discussion/Conclusion

For this sample of patients who undergo a DMR process, the pharmacy team clarified medication changes at a mean rate of 3.5 changes per patient. Addition of medication was the most common event. The most frequent class of medication attracting a DMR note may be a reflection of the cardiovascular morbidities of patients as well as perceived adverse effects as 27/32 ‘on hold’ notes were for cardiovascular medication. Limitations of this study include the patient sample being collected in one hospital, hence results may not be generalizable. There was no attempt to ascertain if the DMR notes added value to primary care medicines reconciliation process.

References

1. Hill A, Wilcock M. Exploring pharmacist involvement in the discharge medicines reconciliation process and information transfer to primary care: an observational study. Int J Clin Pharm 2022;44(1):27-33.

2. Wilcock M, Hill A, Wynn A, Kelly L. Accuracy of pharmacist electronic discharge medicines review information transmitted to primary care at discharge. Int J Clin Pharm 2019;41(3):820–824.

3. Professional Record Standards Body. eDischarge Summary Standard V2.1, December 2019