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 (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff. Audit of 3291patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as ‘clinically important’. Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports. A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6–1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0–253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4–22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4–28.4%) contained ≥1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit. Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.

Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of a ‘Do not interrupt’ bundled intervention to reduce non-medication-related interruptions to nurses during medication administration. Methods A parallel eight cluster randomised controlled study was conducted in a major teaching hospital in Adelaide, Australia. Four wards were randomised to the intervention which comprised wearing a vest when administering medications; strategies for diverting interruptions; clinician and patient education; and reminders. Control wards were blinded to the intervention. Structured direct observations of medication administration processes were conducted. The primary outcome was non-medication-related interruptions during individual medication dose administrations. The secondary outcomes were total interruption and multitasking rates. A survey of nurses' experiences was administered. Results Over 8 weeks and 364.7 hours, 227 nurses were observed administering 4781 medications. At baseline, nurses experienced 57 interruptions/100 administrations, 87.9% were unrelated to the medication task being observed. Intervention wards experienced a significant reduction in non-medication-related interruptions from 50/100 administrations (95% CI 45 to 55) to 34/100 (95% CI 30 to 38). Controlling for clustering, ward type and medication route showed a significant reduction of 15 non-medication-related interruptions/100 administrations compared with control wards. A total of 88 nurses (38.8%) completed the poststudy survey. Intervention ward nurses reported that vests were time consuming, cumbersome and hot. Only 48% indicated that they would support the intervention becoming hospital policy. Discussion Nurses experienced a high rate of interruptions. Few were related to the medication task, demonstrating considerable scope to reduce unnecessary interruptions. While the intervention was associated with a statistically significant decline in non-medication-related interruptions, the magnitude of this reduction and its likely impact on error rates should be considered, relative to the effectiveness of alternate interventions, associated costs, likely acceptability and long-term sustainability of such interventions.

Objective To describe the pharmacists’ workflow, including tasks and time spent, to better understand their work capacity. Design Cross-sectional, observational, time and motion study. Setting Community pharmacies in Western Australia and New South Wales, Australia. Participants Currently registered and practising pharmacists were approached using snowball sampling and selected using purposive techniques to obtain balance representation of metropolitan and rural pharmacies, as well as high and low script volumes where possible. Results Twenty-four pharmacists across 15 pharmacies participated during the 135 sessions totalling over 274 hours of observation. Dispensing (30%), indirect patient services (17%), counselling (15%) and professional management activities (15%) were the top four duties pharmacists performed, while only 2% of time was spent on professional services such as pain clinics and influenza vaccinations. Tasks were frequently interrupted and often performed simultaneously. Breaks and consumer-contact times were limited. More time was spent on professional service activities in non-metropolitan pharmacies, in pharmacies with greater daily prescription volumes and those with one or more support pharmacists. Conclusions This is the first study to quantify the pharmacists’ tasks in Australian community pharmacies. Much time is being spent on dispensing, supply and management activities with little time for providing additional professional services. An extra supporting pharmacist is likely necessary to increase professional services. These findings could support future research around barriers and enablers of conducive workflows and of extended professional services.

Background and objective This study investigates health professionals’ reactions to patients’ perceptions of health issues – a little‐researched topic vital to the reform of the care of chronic illness. Methods Focus groups were undertaken with doctors, nurses, allied health staff and pharmacists (n = 88) in two Australian urban regions. The focus groups explored responses to patient experiences of chronic illness (COPD, Diabetes, CHF) obtained in an earlier qualitative study. Content analysis was undertaken of the transcripts assisted by NVivo7 software. Results Health professionals and patients agreed on general themes: that competing demands in self‐management, financial pressure and co‐morbidity were problems for people with chronic illness. However where patients and carers focused on their personal challenges, health professionals often saw the patient experience as a series of failures relating to compliance or service fragmentation. Some saw this as a result of individual shortcomings. Most identified structural and attitudinal issues. All saw the prime solution as additional resources for their own activities. Fee for service providers (mainly doctors) sought increased remuneration; salaried professionals (mainly nurses and allied health professionals) sought to increase capacity within their professional group. Conclusions Professionals focus on their own resources and the behaviour of other professionals to improve management of chronic illness. They did not factor information from patient experience into their views about systems improvement. This inability to identify solutions beyond their professional sphere highlights the limitations of an over‐reliance on the perspectives of health professionals. The views of patients and carers must find a stronger voice in health policy.