Article opens in PDF
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Medication reconciliation improves congruence
in cross sectional patient courses. Our regional
electronic medical record (EMR) integrates the shared
medication
record (SMR) which provides full access to current
medication and medication prescriptions for all citizens
in Denmark. We studied whether our SMR integration could
facilitate medication reconciliation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients admitted to the emergency
department for hospitalization were randomised to
consultation using EMR with or without the integrated SMR
access. Observed time used for medication reconciliation
was the primary efficacy parameter.
RESULTS: A total of 62 consecutive patient consultations
were randomised including 39 with more than five prescriptions.
EMR had data from previous consultations for 46 patients,
59 patients provided information on medication. In
all, 18 junior physicians in early postgraduate medical training
each participated with a median of three consultations
(range 1-9). Time expenditure for medicine reconciliation
was 5:27 min.:sec. (range: 2:00-15:37) with access to SMR
integration and 4:15 min.:sec. (1:15-12:00) without SMR access.
The number of active medicine prescriptions was eight
and nine, respectively. Incorporating SMR did not increase
the work load. Physicians judged the SMR integration and
workflow as being useful. Patients unambiguously supported
physicians’ use of SMR in this setting.
CONCLUSION: Integration of information on individuals’
medication from a national SMR into a hospital EMR was
feasible and useful, and it did not increase time expenditure
for medication reconciliation.
FUNDING: not relevant.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Medication reconciliation improves congruence
in cross sectional patient courses. Our regional
electronic medical record (EMR) integrates the shared
medication
record (SMR) which provides full access to current
medication and medication prescriptions for all citizens
in Denmark. We studied whether our SMR integration could
facilitate medication reconciliation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients admitted to the emergency
department for hospitalization were randomised to
consultation using EMR with or without the integrated SMR
access. Observed time used for medication reconciliation
was the primary efficacy parameter.
RESULTS: A total of 62 consecutive patient consultations
were randomised including 39 with more than five prescriptions.
EMR had data from previous consultations for 46 patients,
59 patients provided information on medication. In
all, 18 junior physicians in early postgraduate medical training
each participated with a median of three consultations
(range 1-9). Time expenditure for medicine reconciliation
was 5:27 min.:sec. (range: 2:00-15:37) with access to SMR
integration and 4:15 min.:sec. (1:15-12:00) without SMR access.
The number of active medicine prescriptions was eight
and nine, respectively. Incorporating SMR did not increase
the work load. Physicians judged the SMR integration and
workflow as being useful. Patients unambiguously supported
physicians’ use of SMR in this setting.
CONCLUSION: Integration of information on individuals’
medication from a national SMR into a hospital EMR was
feasible and useful, and it did not increase time expenditure
for medication reconciliation.
FUNDING: not relevant.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.