急性失代偿性心力衰竭住院患者主动与追溯用药协调模式的比较。

Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3233/JRS-230034
Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam, Paniz Akbari, Maryam Mehrpooya, Taher Entezari-Maleki, Maryam Rangchian, Maryam Zamanirafe, Erfan Parvaneh, Younes Mohammadi
{"title":"急性失代偿性心力衰竭住院患者主动与追溯用药协调模式的比较。","authors":"Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam, Paniz Akbari, Maryam Mehrpooya, Taher Entezari-Maleki, Maryam Rangchian, Maryam Zamanirafe, Erfan Parvaneh, Younes Mohammadi","doi":"10.3233/JRS-230034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between proactive and retroactive models of medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.\",\"authors\":\"Davoud Ahmadimoghaddam, Paniz Akbari, Maryam Mehrpooya, Taher Entezari-Maleki, Maryam Rangchian, Maryam Zamanirafe, Erfan Parvaneh, Younes Mohammadi\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/JRS-230034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-230034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-230034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于药物调节对患者安全影响的研究大多集中在追溯模式上,对主动模式的关注有限:关于药物调节对患者安全影响的研究大多集中在追溯模式上,对主动模式的关注有限:本研究旨在对急性失代偿性心力衰竭住院患者的主动模式和追溯模式进行比较:这项前瞻性准实验研究于 2022 年 6 月至 11 月在伊朗一家学术医院的心脏病科进行,历时 6 个月。符合条件的患者是因急性失代偿性心力衰竭住院的患者,入院前至少使用过五种常规药物。采用主动模式对 81 例患者进行了药物调节,采用追溯模式对 81 例患者进行了药物调节:结果:采用追溯模式对 556 种药物进行了核对,采用主动模式对 581 种药物进行了核对。在追溯病例中,发现了 341 种差异(包括有意和无意差异),而在主动病例中,发现了 231 种差异。在主动病例中,至少有一项无意差异的患者比例明显低于追溯病例(23.80% 对 74.03%)。此外,与追溯病例相比,主动病例中的无意差异数量也明显较少(231 例差异中的 22 例对 341 例差异中的 150 例)。在追溯病例中,药物遗漏是最常见的无意差异类型(44.00)。在追溯病例中发现的对账错误中,42.70% 被判定为有可能造成中度至重度伤害。虽然两种模式下获取用药史所需的平均时间相似(00:27 [h: min] 对 00:30),但主动模式下完成整个过程所需的平均时间明显短于追溯模式(00:41 min 对 00:51):本研究强调,主动模式是一种及时有效的药物调节方法,尤其是在提高高危患者用药安全方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Comparison between proactive and retroactive models of medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.

Background: Most research on the impact of medication reconciliation on patient safety focused on the retroactive model, with limited attention given to the proactive model.

Objective: This study was conducted to compare the proactive and retroactive models in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.

Methods: This prospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted over six months, from June to November 2022, at the cardiology unit of an academic hospital in Iran. Eligible patients were those hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure using a minimum of five regular medications before admission. Medication reconciliation was performed in 81 cases using the proactive model and in 81 using the retroactive model.

Results: 556 medications were reconciled using the retroactive model, and 581 were reconciled using the proactive model. In the retroactive cases, 341 discrepancies (both intentional and unintentional) were identified, compared to 231 in the proactive cases. The proportion of patients with at least one unintentional discrepancy was significantly lower in the proactive cases than in the retroactive cases (23.80% versus 74.03%). Moreover, the number of unintentional discrepancies was significantly lower in the proactive cases compared to the retroactive cases (22 out of 231 discrepancies versus 150 out of 341 discrepancies). In the retroactive cases, medication omission was the most frequent type of unintentional discrepancy (44.00). About, 42.70% of reconciliation errors detected in the retroactive cases were judged to have the potential to cause moderate to severe harm. While the average time spent obtaining medication history was similar in both models (00:27 [h: min] versus 00:30), the average time needed to complete the entire process was significantly shorter in the proactive model compared to the retroactive model (00:41 min versus 00:51).

Conclusion: This study highlighted that the proactive model is a timely and effective method of medication reconciliation, particularly in improving medication safety for high-risk patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1