Effect of medication reconciliation interventions on outcomes: A systematic overview of systematic reviews

Author:

Anderson Laura J1,Schnipper Jeff L2,Nuckols Teryl K1,Shane Rita3,Le Michael M4,Robbins Karen1,Pevnick Joshua M1,Hughes Carmel5,Jackevicius Cynthia A6,O’Mahony Denis7,Sarkisian Catherine8,

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

2. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA

3. Department of Pharmacy, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

4. David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

5. Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA

6. School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK

7. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA, and VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA

8. Department of Medicine (Geriatrics), University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To evaluate and summarize published evidence from systematic reviews examining medication reconciliation. Methods MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for English-language systematic reviews published from January 2004 to March 2019. Reviewers independently extracted information and scored review quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. For reviews with AMSTAR scores above 7, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality, with evidence summarized and conclusions compared across reviews. Results Eleven reviews met the inclusion criteria, 5 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Most systematic reviews included primary studies of comprehensive bundled interventions that featured medication reconciliation as a central component. Reviews largely focused on transitions into and out of hospital settings. Five reviews focused exclusively on pharmacist-led interventions. Of the 5 reviews that considered all types of medication discrepancies, 3 reviews found very low-quality evidence that interventions reduced medication discrepancies. Neither of the 2 reviews that examined clinically significant medication discrepancies found any intervention effect. Of the 5 reviews that examined healthcare utilization outcomes, only 1 found any intervention effect, and that finding was based on low- to very low-quality evidence. Four reviews considered clinical outcomes, but none found any intervention effect. Conclusion An overview of systematic reviews of medication reconciliation interventions found 9 high-quality systematic reviews. A minority of those reviews’ conclusions were consistent with medication reconciliation alone having a measurable impact, and such conclusions were almost all based on very low-quality evidence.

Funder

American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Research and Education Foundation

National Institute on Aging

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy,Pharmacology

Cited by 28 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Conciliation médicamenteuse : intérêts et limites;La Revue de Médecine Interne;2023-09

2. Polypharmacy in home care;Primary Care Medicine - Theory and Practice;2023-08-10

3. Medication Reconciliation and Review: Theory, Practice and Evidence;Practical Issues in Geriatrics;2023

4. Economic Evidence for Pharmacist-Led Medicines Use Review and Medicines Reconciliation;Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy;2023

5. Optimizing Medication Safety for Patients at Transitions of Care;Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy;2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3