4.1 Article

Pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation reduces oral oncolytic medication errors during transitions of care

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages S100-S104

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxaa168

Keywords

Medication reconciliation; oral chemotherapy; oral oncolytics; practice advancement; transitions of care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to characterize medication errors associated with oral oncolytics as patients with cancer were admitted to the inpatient setting and identify contributing factors that lead to errors. Methods. A review of patients prescribed a cyclic oral oncolytic who were then admitted to the inpatient setting at a large, academic medical center from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2018, was conducted. Results. Eighty-one patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-five errors (43%) related to transcription of the oral oncolytic regimen from the outpatient to the inpatient setting were identified. Categorization of errors revealed that 46% were due to delays in treatment. Within this error subset, 75% of the delays were related to unavailability of nonformulary oral oncolytics. There was a significant decrease in error for patients who received medication reconciliation by a pharmacist (P = 0.032) after admission. There were no other significant differences observed among variables that may have led to increased error rates. Three percent of errors were reported to the internal medication safety reporting system at our institution. Conclusion. The inability to fully confirm patients' home regimen via chart review poses great risk to accurate medication ordering upon hospital admission. Completion of medication reconciliations by pharmacists serves to decrease rates of errors that may occur during hospital admission in cancer patients undergoing treatment with oral oncolytic therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available