Objective: To examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of medication reconciliation and review and to improve clinical outcomes in hospitals, the community, and aged care facilities. Data Source: This systematic review was undertaken in concordance with the PRISMA statement. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles published between January 2000 and March 2014. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized and nonrandomized studies rating the severity of medication discrepancies and medication-related problems identified during medication reconciliation and/or review were considered for inclusion. Data were extracted independently by 2 authors using a data collection form. Data Synthesis: Of the 5292 articles identified, 83 articles met the inclusion criteria. Medication reconciliation identified unintentional medication discrepancies in 3.4% to 98.2% of patients. There is limited evidence of the potential of these discrepancies to cause harm. Medication reviews identified medication-related problems or possible adverse drug reactions in 17.2% to 94.0% of patients. The studies reported conflicting findings regarding the impact of medication review on length of stays, readmissions, and mortality. Conclusions: The evidence demonstrates that medication reconciliation has the potential to identify many medication discrepancies and reduce potential harm, but the impact on clinical outcomes is less clear. Similarly, medication review can detect medication-related problems in many patients, but evidence of clinical impact is scant. Overall, there is limited evidence that medication reconciliation and medication review processes, as currently performed, significantly improve clinical outcomes, such as reductions in hospital readmissions.

To compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients. Randomized, controlled trial. General intensive care unit (24 beds) in an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital. Adult, mechanically ventilated patients (n = 312). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sedation directed by formal guidelines (protocol group, n = 153) or usual local clinical practice (control, n = 159). The median (95% confidence interval) duration of ventilation was 79 hrs (56-93 hrs) for patients in the protocol group compared with 58 hrs (44-78 hrs) for patients who received control care (p = .20). Lengths of stay (median [range]) in the intensive care unit (94 [2-1106] hrs vs. 88 (14-962) hrs, p = .58) and hospital (13 [1-113] days vs. 13 (1-365) days, p = .97) were similar, as were the proportions of subjects receiving a tracheostomy (17% vs. 15%, p = .64) or undergoing unplanned self-extubation (1.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .61). Death in the intensive care unit occurred in 32 (21%) patients in the protocol group and 32 (20%) control subjects (p = .89), with a similar overall proportion of deaths in hospital (25% vs. 22%, p = .51). A Cox proportional hazards model, after adjustment for age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, diagnostic category, and doses of commonly used drugs, estimated that protocol sedation management was associated with a 22% decrease (95% confidence interval 40% decrease to 2% increase, p = .07) in the occurrence of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. This randomized trial provided no evidence of a substantial reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation or length of stay, in either the intensive care unit or the hospital, with the use of protocol-directed sedation compared with usual local management. Qualified high-intensity nurse staffing and routine Australian intensive care unit nursing responsibility for many aspects of ventilatory practice may explain the contrast between these findings and some recent North American studies.