Medication Reconciliation Effect on Prolonged Inpatient Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis

Background: While medication reconciliation (MR) has been shown to reduce medication errors by limiting errors of transcription, omission, and duplicate therapy, its Impact on the provision of unnecessary prophylaxis is largely unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of MR on the incidence of pr...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	The Annals of pharmacotherapy Vol. 42; no. 7; pp. 940 - 946
Main Authors:	Zeigler, Amy J, McAllen, Karen J, Slot, Martha G, Barletta, Jeffrey F
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Los Angeles, CA Harvey Whitney Books 01-07-2008 SAGE Publications Whitney
Subjects:	Adult Aged Anti-Ulcer Agents - therapeutic use Biological and medical sciences Continuity of Patient Care Drug Utilization Hospitals, Community Hospitals, Teaching Humans Inpatients Intensive Care Units Medical sciences Michigan Middle Aged Patient Admission Patient Discharge Patient Transfer Pharmacology. Drug treatments Retrospective Studies Risk Factors Stomach Ulcer - prevention & control Stress, Psychological - prevention & control Michigan stress ulcer prophylaxis Intensive care unit Human Drug Prevention Treatment Ulcer Hospital Stress Prolonged
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Background: While medication reconciliation (MR) has been shown to reduce medication errors by limiting errors of transcription, omission, and duplicate therapy, its Impact on the provision of unnecessary prophylaxis is largely unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of MR on the incidence of prolonged stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) across the continuum of care from hospital admission to discharge as well as evaluate clinical conditions associated with prolonged SUR Methods: This retrospective study assessed patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and had SUP initiated. Patients were excluded if they were receiving gastroprotective therapy prior to ICU admission, were being treated for an acute gastrointestinal hemorrhage, or died. The need for SUP was determined using risk factors adapted from evidence-based guidelines developed by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. The use of SUP was assessed upon transfer from the ICU to a non-ICU setting and at hospital discharge. Results were compared between pre-MR and post-MR groups. Results: Data from 114 (pre-MR, n = 53; post-MR, n = 61) medical and surgical ICU patients were evaluated. There was no significant difference in the use of prolonged SUP upon transfer from the ICU to a non-ICU setting in the pre-MR and post-MR groups, respectively (85% [45/53] vs 79% [48/61), p = 0.393). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the use of prolonged SUP upon hospital discharge In the pre-MR and post-MR groups, respectively (14% [6/44] vs 23% [10743), p = 0.247), There were no clinical conditions for which prolonged SUP use was predominant. Conclusions: The strategy of MR alone will not decrease the incidence of prolonged SUP in hospitalized patients. Other techniques should be evaluated to encourage appropriate use of acid-suppressive agents.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	1060-0280 1542-6270
DOI:	10.1345/aph.1L123