What is the impact of discharge medication history and reconciliation on readmissions?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Multiple studies and systematic reviews support the role of discharge medication history and reconciliation in reducing hospital readmissions, particularly when incorporated into pharmacist-led transition-of-care programs. The greatest benefit appears to occur shortly after discharge, while medication reconciliation also improves the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. However, the independent impact of medication reconciliation alone remains uncertain because many studies evaluate it as part of a broader intervention that includes patient counseling, medication review, and postdischarge follow-up.

discharge medication reconciliation readmissions

Background

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at hospital transitions, including 17 studies involving 21,342 adults. Interventions commonly included obtaining or confirming an accurate medication history, reconciling medications at discharge, providing discharge counseling or documentation, and conducting postdischarge telephone calls or home visits. Most included studies featured multiple transitions. Compared with usual care, these programs reduced all-cause readmissions by 19% (relative risk [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.95) and medication-related adverse drug event hospital revisits by 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.53). The reduction in readmissions was significant during earlier follow-up, generally within 30 days (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98), but not during longer follow-up (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.06), suggesting that the benefit may be greatest shortly after discharge. However, substantial heterogeneity, inclusion of lower-quality observational studies, and the use of multifaceted interventions prevented the authors from determining whether discharge medication history and reconciliation alone produced the reduction or which specific component was most effective. Overall, the findings support pharmacist-led discharge medication reconciliation as part of a broader medication-safety transition program to reduce early readmissions, while highlighting the need for larger, high-quality randomized trials. [1]

A 2020 overview assessed five systematic reviews examining the effects of medication reconciliation across care transitions, with particular attention to patient outcomes and healthcare utilization. The interventions were generally pharmacist-led and often combined reconciliation with creation of an accurate postdischarge medication list, patient counseling, postdischarge communication, or medication review. The evidence did not demonstrate a consistent reduction in unplanned readmissions: a meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials found no significant benefit within 5 to 30 days after discharge (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44-1.18), while another analysis of seven studies found a pooled RR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.66-1.25) with substantial heterogeneity. One cohort study reported fewer readmissions at 7 and 14 days, but this benefit was no longer significant at 30 days. Results for composite healthcare utilization, usually readmissions and emergency department visits, were mixed, with one review showing a significant reduction (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95) but two others showing no clear benefit. Although pharmacist-obtained medication lists appeared to contain fewer errors, the review found no firm evidence that discharge medication history and reconciliation reduced readmissions because the underlying reviews were low or critically low quality, outcomes were frequently secondary or underpowered, and reconciliation was often bundled with other discharge interventions, preventing assessment of its independent effect. [2]

A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies also evaluated pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge. The intervention involved comparing the preadmission medication history with the discharge medication list, updating primary care or community pharmacy records, resolving discrepancies, and ensuring that patients or caregivers understood medication changes. Although pharmacists identified and resolved more discrepancies than usual-care processes, the meta-analysis of seven studies involving 2,336 patients found no significant reduction in readmissions (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.25), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=71%). Three individual studies reported significantly fewer readmissions, one reported increased readmissions, and the remaining studies found no significant effect. The authors noted that inaccurate discharge medication documentation may limit the effectiveness of postdischarge reconciliation because correcting community records using an erroneous discharge list may perpetuate unintended medications. Overall, discharge medication history and reconciliation improved discrepancy identification and resolution but did not consistently reduce readmissions; interpretation was limited by variation in study designs, interventions, follow-up periods, and outcome definitions, as well as moderate or high risk of bias in 12 of the 14 studies. [3]

Background References: [1] Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010003. Published 2016 Feb 23. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010003
[2] Guisado-Gil AB, Mejías-Trueba M, Alfaro-Lara ER, Sánchez-Hidalgo M, Ramírez-Duque N, Santos-Rubio MD. Impact of medication reconciliation on health outcomes: An overview of systematic reviews. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(8):995-1002. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.10.011
[3] McNab D, Bowie P, Ross A, MacWalter G, Ryan M, Morrison J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(4):308-320. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007087
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 8 studies investigating the researchable question:

What is the impact of discharge medication history and reconciliation on readmissions?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-8 for your response.


 

 

Impact of Discharge Medication Reconciliation Across a Five-Hospital Health System
Design

Retrospective, multicenter study

N= 651

Objective

To evaluate the impact of expanding pharmacist-led discharge medication reconciliation (DMR) across a four-hospital health system on 30-day readmission rate for high risk of readmission disease groups

Study Groups

High risk of readmission disease groups (n= 651)

Inclusion Criteria

Patients ≥18 years with COPD, pneumonia, CHF, or AMI as the primary admitting or prior diagnosis, where DMR was completed and documented before discharge

Exclusion Criteria 60-bed hospital excluded due to limited resources for expanding pharmacist-led DMR
Methods DMR was performed for patients with high risk for 30-day readmission disease states. Pharmacists reviewed discharge orders and identified discrepancies such as dosage errors, omissions, duplications, drug interactions, and inappropriate therapy. Interventions were documented in the electronic medical record and reported using an online medication safety event reporting system. 
Duration

January 2020 through March 2020

Outcome Measures

Primary: 30-day readmission rate for high risk of readmission disease groups

Secondary: DMR capture rate, number of DMR interventions, types of interventions made

Results   Pre-expansion Post-expansion p-value
30-day readmission rate 17.5% 15.5% 0.003
DMR capture rate 28% 35% Not specified
Number of DMR interventions 61 179 Not specified
Most interventions were classified as the wrong dose(39%) or the wrong drug (30%), which mostly were determined to be duplication of therapy. Other interventions included the wrong time or omission of drugs (25%) and wrong documentation (6%). 
Study Author Conclusions Expansion of pharmacist-led DMR significantly decreased 30-day readmission rate for high risk of readmission disease groups. Pharmacist-led DMR is an effective way to reduce medication errors on discharge. 
Critique The study demonstrated a significant reduction in 30-day readmission rates with the expansion of pharmacist-led DMR. However, the lack of standardization of baseline characteristics and the short 90-day data collection period are limitations. Additionally, the exclusion of the 60-bed hospital and potential underreporting of interventions due to the time-consuming nature of the reporting system may introduce bias. 
Table 1 References:
[4] Lee V, Kowalski J, Liu M, Thayer B. Impact of Discharge Medication Reconciliation Across a Five-Hospital Health System. J Healthc Qual. 2022;44(4):194-200. doi:10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000335

 

Pharmacist‑led Medication Reconciliation at Patient Discharge: A Tool to Reduce Healthcare Utilization? An Observational Study in Patients 65 Years or Older
Design

Observational multicenter prospective study

N= 377

Objective

To assess the effect of medication reconciliation at discharge (MRd) on unplanned rehospitalization within 30 days and on patients’ experience of discharge and their knowledge of their medication.

Study Groups

Medicaiton reconciliation on admission (MRa) only (n= 156)

MRa and MRd (n= 221) 

Inclusion Criteria

Patients 65 years or older having received MRa in one of the 12 wards involved in the study 

7 medical wards (2 departments of internal medicine, 2 departments of geriatrics, 1 of general medicine and 2 of pulmonology) and 5 rehabilitation wards—in 5 hospitals including 1 university hospital and 4 standard hospitalss

Exclusion Criteria

Patients in palliative care, those who died during hospitalization, those transferred to a second medical ward after the first ward in which the inclusion was carried out, and patients still hospitalized at the end of the follow-up study period. 

Methods The study involved MRa and MRd processes conducted in four steps: data collection, data summary, BPMH validation, and information sharing with the general practitioner and community pharmacist. The MR process was associated with pharmaceutical analysis of prescriptions during the hospital stay.  The pharmacists also identified the person responsible for the patient’s medication (patient himself or herself, partner or relatives, nurses operating in private practice or in nursing home). This person was called by phone 7 and 30 days after discharge. 
Duration

June 2019 to November 2019

Outcome Measures

Primary: Proportion of patients experiencing death, unplanned rehospitalization, or emergency visit for ADEs within 30 days

Secondary: Unplanned rehospitalization or emergency visit for any reason, patient’s experience of discharge, knowledge and appropriation of medication

Baseline Characteristics   MRa only group (n= 156) MRa and MRd group (n= 221)
Age, Mean (SD) 81.7 (7.4) 81.9 (7.8)
Gender (Female) 86 (55.1%) 128 (57.9%)
Living Alone at home 62 (40.03%) 96 (44.7%)
Education level - Primary school 21 (13.8%) 41 (19.0%)
Cognition (Impaired) 32 (20.6%) 50 (22.6%)
Medication at admission Mean (SD) 8.4 (4.0) 8.1 (4.1)
Results   MRa only Group (n= 156) MRa and MRd group (n= 221) p-value
Death or unplanned rehospitalization or emergency visit for ADEs 9 (5.8%) 20 (9.0%) 0.239
Unplanned rehospitalization or emergency visit, whatever the reasons 23 (14.7%) 33 (14.9%) 0.960
Patients in the “MRa and MRd group” were more likely to feel that their discharge from hospital was well organized (p < 0.001) and reported more frequently that their community pharmacist received information about their hospital stay (p = 0.003).
Adverse Events

No significant difference in adverse events related to ADEs between groups

Study Author Conclusions

This study found no effect of MRd on healthcare utilization 30 days after discharge in patients over 65, but the process improved patients’ experiences of care continuity. Further studies are needed to better understand this positive impact on their drug care pathway. 

Critique The study was conducted in a real-life context, which is a strength, but the observational design and potential confounding factors may limit the generalizability of the findings. The lack of significant difference in healthcare utilization could be due to the fact that all patients received MRa, potentially reducing the observable impact of MRd alone. Additionally, the study faced challenges in fully implementing the MR process, which may have affected the results. 



Table 2 References:
[5] Bajeux E, Alix L, Corne L, et al. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at patient discharge: a tool to reduce healthcare utilization? an observational study in patients 65 years or older. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):576. Published 2022 Jul 13. doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03192-3

Inpatient pharmacists using a readmission risk model in supporting discharge medication reconciliation to reduce unplanned hospital readmissions: a quality improvement intervention
Design

Quality improvement interventional study

N= 3382

Objective To evaluate the impact of clinical pharmacists' involvement in discharge medication reconciliation on reducing unplanned hospital readmissions in high-risk patients
Study Groups

Intervention group (n= 1569)

Preintervention comparison group (n= 873)

Concurrent comparison group (n= 940)

Inclusion Criteria Patients identified as high risk for readmission using the Epic readmission risk model, discharged from adult general medicine services at Duke University Hospital between October 2018 and February 2020
Exclusion Criteria Patients with psychiatric diagnoses, sickle cell disease, rehabilitation care, non-surgical cancer DRGs, or admitted for inpatient hospice; patients transferred to other acute facilities, died during index hospitalization, or left against medical advice
Methods Clinical pharmacists reviewed discharge medication reconciliation for high-risk patients identified by the Epic readmission risk model. The review included accuracy and completeness of medication reconciliation, dosing and frequency adjustments, therapeutic duplications, drug interactions, and cost barriers. Pharmacists communicated findings to providers for potential changes before discharge
Duration October 2018 to February 2020
Outcome Measures

Primary: 7-day readmission rate

Secondary: 14-day and 30-day readmission rates

Baseline Characteristics   Group 1 (pharmacist intervention) Group 2 (preintervention comparison group) Group 3 (concurrent comparison group)
Age, Median (IQR) 63 (51–73) 61 (50–72) 63 (53–73)
Race/ethnicity - Hispanic 58 (3.7%) 19 (2.2%) 42 (4.5%)
Race/ethnicity - Non-Hispanic black 793 (50.5%) 428 (49.0%) 440 (46.8%)
Race/ethnicity - Non-Hispanic white 664 (42.3%) 400 (45.8%) 416 (44.3%)
Female 810 (51.6%) 463 (53.0%) 464 (49.4%)
Length of stay, days Median (IQR) 6.6 (3.6–13.2) 6.1 (3.4–11.1) 5.9 (3.2–11.5)
Discharge disposition - Facility 594 (37.9%) 290 (33.2%) 304 (32.3%)
Discharge disposition - Home 975 (62.1%) 583 (66.8%) 636 (67.7%)
Insurance status - Medicaid 279 (17.8%) 154 (17.6%) 136 (14.5%)
Insurance status - Medicare 1085 (69.2%) 618 (70.8%) 681 (72.4%)
Average risk score at discharge 38.8 36.5 34.8
Results   Analysis group 1 (pharmacist intervention) Analysis group 2 (preintervention comparison group) Analysis group 3 (concurrent comparison group)
Readmission in 7 days 5.8% 7.6% 7.6%
Readmission in 14 days 13.7% 14.2% 13.8%
Readmission in 30 days 25.8% 26.0% 24.6%
OR for 7-day readmission - 1.41 (1.01 to 1.97) 1.49 (1.07 to 2.07)
Adverse Events No adverse events reported
Study Author Conclusions Involving clinical pharmacists in the discharge medication reconciliation process for high-risk patients is associated with a significant reduction in 7-day unplanned readmissions. The use of the Epic readmission risk score model effectively focused pharmacist efforts on the highest-risk patients
Critique The study effectively demonstrated the benefit of pharmacist involvement in reducing 7-day readmissions, highlighting the importance of targeted interventions. However, the study's single-site design and lack of control for other concurrent readmission reduction projects may limit generalizability. Additionally, the study did not include postdischarge follow-up, which could have further impacted readmission rates
Table 3 References:
[6] Gallagher D, Greenland M, Lindquist D, et al. Inpatient pharmacists using a readmission risk model in supporting discharge medication reconciliation to reduce unplanned hospital readmissions: a quality improvement intervention. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(1):e001560. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001560

Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on 30-Day Returns to Hospital
Design

Parallel group, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

N= 1702

Objective To assess the impact of medication reconciliation at hospital admission on patient-centered health care outcomes
Study Groups

Intervention group (n= 866)

Control group (n= 836)

Inclusion Criteria Patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions at 2 regional secondary teaching hospitals in southern Switzerland
Exclusion Criteria Patients admitted to an intensive care unit without reaching inpatient wards, planned hospital stays shorter than 48 hours, or admitted to a hospital ward in the public hospital network within the previous 3 months with discharge at home
Methods Medication reconciliation was performed at hospital admission in 3 steps: (1) pharmacy assistant obtained the best possible medication history (BPMH); (2) clinical pharmacist reconciled BPMH with home medications recorded by the attending physician; (3) medication discrepancies were communicated to the attending physician for adaptation
Duration November 1, 2018, to January 15, 2020
Outcome Measures

Primary: Proportion of patients with unplanned all-cause hospital visits within 30 days after discharge

Secondary: Period prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs), length of hospital stay (LOS), number of in-hospital deaths, number of resources used during the hospital stay

Baseline Characteristics   Intervention group (n= 866) Control group (n= 836)
Age ≥85, y 314 (36.3%) 397 (47.5%)
>10 medications at hospital admission 301 (34.8%) 295 (35.3%)
Age ≥85 y and >10 medications at hospital admission 251 (29.0%) 144 (17.2%)
Age, median (IQR), y 86.0 (79.0-89.0) 86.0 (79.8-90.0)
Men 366 (42.3%) 354 (42.3%)
No. of medications at hospital admission, median (IQR) 12 (9-16) 11 (6-13)
Results   Intervention group (n= 866) Control group (n= 836) p-value
Unplanned all-cause hospital visits 340 (39.3%) 330 (39.5%) 0.93
Unplanned all-cause hospital visits to ED Depicted in table Depicted in table 0.08
Unplanned all-cause hospital readmissions Depicted in table Depicted in table 0.10
Median LOS was 8 (5-13) days in the intervention group and 8 (4-13) days in the control group (p= 0.23). There were 19 in-hospital deaths (2.2%) in the intervention group and 23 deaths (2.8%) in the control group (p= 0.55). The median number of laboratory tests was 9.5 (4.0-23.0) in the intervention group and 9.0 (4.0-20.0) in the control group (p= 0.31). The 2 groups each had a median 1 (0-2) radiologic exams and 1 (0-1) electrocardiograms.
Adverse Events The overall period prevalence of ADEs was 11 ADEs (1.3%) in the intervention group and 14 ADEs (1.7%) in the control group (p= 0.49). No statistically significant difference was found for serious ADEs that prolonged hospitalization between the intervention group (5 ADEs [0.6%]) and control group (6 ADEs [0.7%]; p= 0.77).
Study Author Conclusions Medication reconciliation at hospital admission had no impact on postdischarge health care outcomes among patients aged 85 years or older, with more than 10 medications at hospital admission, or meeting both conditions.
Critique The study was well-designed with a large sample size and independent observers for outcome verification. However, the primary outcome was assessed regardless of the causes of hospital revisits, which could have masked medication-related harms. The intervention was limited to admission without continuation at discharge, potentially reducing its impact. The study's regional setting may limit generalizability, and potential spillover effects could have influenced control group outcomes.
Table 4 References:
[7] Ceschi A, Noseda R, Pironi M, et al. Effect of Medication Reconciliation at Hospital Admission on 30-Day Returns to Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2124672. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.24672

 

Impact of a Medication Reconciliation Care Bundle at Hospital Discharge on Continuity of Care: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Design

Single-centre, randomised controlled trial

N= 120

Objective To compare the impact of a care bundle including medication reconciliation at discharge by a pharmacist versus standard of care, on continuity of therapeutic changes between hospital and primary care and outcome of patients, within 1 month after discharge
Study Groups

Intervention group (n= 60)

Control group (n= 60)

Inclusion Criteria Patients aged ≥18 years, hospitalised in the infectious disease department with at least one chronic disease and three current medications before admission, discharged to home or nursing home
Exclusion Criteria Patients under legal guardianship or advanced dementia (MMSE < 20), not speaking fluent French, or PCP's refusal to answer the questionnaire
Methods

Patients were randomised to receive either a discharge care bundle including medication reconciliation, counselling session, and documentation transfer to PCP (intervention group) or standard of care (control group). Medication reconciliation was performed by a pharmacist, and a counselling session was provided to the patient. A paper mail was sent to the PCP summarising medication changes.

Prescriptions were entered and modified in the CPOE by physicians and residents. In both the groups, prescriptions were analysed every weekday by a pharmacist, with respect to dose checking, screening of drug interactions and consistency between drugs prescribed and patient's biological and clinical conditions.

Duration

February 7, 2017 to July 31, 2019

Outcome Measures

Primary: Proportion of in-hospital prescription changes not maintained by the PCP 1 month after discharge

Secondary: Proportion of patients experiencing early PCP consultation, hospital readmissions, adverse reactions within 1 month postdischarge, and cost of discharge prescriptions

Baseline Characteristics   Control group (n= 60) Intervention group (n= 60)
Sex (M/F) 39/21 (1.9) 35/25 (1.4)
Age, median (IQR) 68.5 (51.75-77) 69 (56.25-74.75)
Charlson comorbidity index, median (IQR) 5 (3-7) 4 (3-6.5)
Length of stay, median (IQR) 6.5 (4-9) 7 (4.75-11.25)
Number of drugs in medication history, median (IQR) 8 (5-10) 7 (5-9.25)
Number of drugs prescribed at discharge, median (IQR) 9 (7-12) 8 (7-10.25)
Number of drugs modified at discharge, median (IQR) 5 (3-8) 5 (3-6)
Results   Control group (n= 60) Intervention group (n= 60) p-value
Proportion of in-hospital prescription changes, not maintained by the PCP 0.24 ± 0.29 0.11 ± 0.22 0.007
PCP’s consultation before day 30 75.9% 56.9% 0.03
Hospitalisation or ED visit 20.7% 3.4% 0.009
Adverse drug reaction 22.8% 7.0% 0.04
Cost of prescription (mean ± SD) 420 ± 917 249 ± 342 0.31
Adverse Events Patients in the intervention group were less frequently readmitted (3.4% vs 20.7%, P = .009) or suffered from ADR (7.0% vs 22.8%, P = .04)
Study Author Conclusions This care bundle resulted in the reduction of treatment changes between hospital discharge and primary care. 
Critique The study demonstrated a significant reduction in treatment changes and adverse events with the intervention. However, it was conducted at a single centre, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. The study also did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.



Table 5 References:
[8] Bouchand F, Leplay C, Guimaraes R, et al. Impact of a medication reconciliation care bundle at hospital discharge on continuity of care: A randomised controlled trial. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(8):e14282. doi:10.1111/ijcp.14282

 

Evaluation of Early Versus Late Postdischarge Medication Reconciliation on Readmission Rates and Emergency Department Visits
Design

Retrospective study

N= 160

Objective To evaluate the impact of early (<48 hours) versus late (48 hours-14 days) postdischarge medication reconciliation on readmissions and emergency department (ED) use
Study Groups

Early group (n= 31)

Late group (n= 129)

Inclusion Criteria Adult patients with postdischarge follow-up visit in the FM clinic or IM clinic with a PCP, clinical pharmacist, or both within 14-day discharge
Exclusion Criteria Patients discharged to skilled nursing facility, extended care facility, subacute rehabilitation, transferred to another acute care facility, or patients discharged to palliative or hospice care
Methods Retrospective data analysis of patients who had a clinic visit with a pharmacist and/or PCP for postdischarge medication reconciliation. Data collected included demographic history, number of days from discharge to postdischarge clinic visit, type of provider seen, and readmission or ED visit within 30 and 90 days postdischarge clinic visit. LACE index and Charlson Comorbidity Index were calculated for risk assessment
Duration August 2013 to March 2014
Outcome Measures

Primary: Hospital use rate at 30 days

Secondary: Hospital use rate at 90 days, hospital use rate with a postdischarge PCP follow-up visit, clinical pharmacist, or both at 30 days

Baseline Characteristics   Early Postdischarge Medication Reconciliation (n= 31) Late Postdischarge Medication Reconciliation (n= 129)
Female 22 (71.0%) 95 (73.6%)
Male 9 (29.0%) 34 (26.4%)
Age, years (range) 61.2 (25-89) 58 (21-91)

Ethnicity

Black

White

Hispanic

 

20 (64.5%)

1 (3.3%)

10 (32.2%)

 

98 (76.0%)

3 (2.3%)

22 (17.1%)

Charlson Comorbidity Index 2.45 ± 1.75 2.19 ± 1.71
High-risk 18 (58.1%) 56 (43.4%)
LACE index score 10.8 ± 2.47 10.2 ± 3.02

Type of provider

PCP only

RPH only

Both

 

12 (38.7%)

15 (48.4%)

4 (12.9%)

 

63 (48.8%)

45 (34.9%)

21 (16.3%)

Results   Early group (n= 31) Late group (n= 129) p-value
Hospital use at 30 days 32.3% 21.8% 0.629
ED use at 30 days 9.7% 10.2% 0.947
Hospital readmission at 30 days 22.6% 11.6% 0.144
Hospital use at 90 days 51.6% 50.3% 0.842
ED use at 90 days 22.6% 17.8% 0.609
Hospital readmission at 90 days 29% 32.5% 0.831
Adverse Events No adverse events reported
Study Author Conclusions Results from this study suggest patients can be seen up to 14 days postdischarge for medication reconciliation with no significant difference on hospital use.
Critique The study is limited by its retrospective design, small sample size, and single-center setting, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not account for patients readmitted to other facilities, and the definition of high-risk patients was not validated. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the timing of postdischarge medication reconciliation and the role of pharmacists in transitions of care.
Table 6 References:
[9] Joseph T, Barros RA, Kim E, Shah B. Evaluation of Early Versus Late Postdischarge Medication Reconciliation on Readmission Rates and Emergency Department Visits. J Pharm Pract. 2018;31(3):279-283. doi:10.1177/0897190017710525

Impact of Pharmacist Involvement in the Transitional Care of High-Risk Patients Through Medication Reconciliation, Medication Education, and Postdischarge Call-Backs (IPITCH Study)
Design

Prospective, randomized, single-period longitudinal study

N= 278

Objective To assess the impact of pharmacist involvement in transitions of care as measured by decreased medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug events (ADEs), patients’ knowledge related to communication about their medications as measured by improvement in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores, and 30-day all-cause inpatient readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits
Study Groups

Control group (n= 141)

Study group (n= 137)

Inclusion Criteria Patients admitted to 2 designated internal medicine units on high-risk medications or with greater than 3 prescription medications upon discharge
Exclusion Criteria Impaired cognition based on Mini-Cog screening assessment scale, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, lack of a personal phone number, non–English speaking, subsequent elective readmission within 30 days of initial visit, more than 3 previous hospital admissions in the past 2 months, palliative care or home/skilled nursing hospice, anticipated length of survival less than 3 months, discharged within 24 hours of admission, discharged against medical advice, or discharged before medication education was conducted
Methods Patients in the study group received face-to-face medication reconciliation, a patient-specific pharmaceutical care plan, discharge counseling, and postdischarge phone calls on days 3, 14, and 30. The control group received the usual hospital standard of care. Data were collected on MEs, ADEs, and readmissions.
Duration November 2012 through June 2013
Outcome Measures

Primary: Composite inpatient readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits

Secondary: MEs, ADEs, HCAHPS scores

Baseline Characteristics   Study (n= 137) Control (n= 141)
Sex, male 52 (37.95%) 59 (41.8%)
Average age, y 55.4 55.8
Average length of stay, d 5.4 (range, 1–104) 4.6 (range, 0–28)
Average REALM-R score (range, 0–8) 6.8 6.7
Average total no. of medications 6.4 7.2
Average no. of scheduled medications 5.7 6.2
Average no. of high-risk category medications 2.2 2.3
Abbreviations: REALM-R = Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine.
Results   Study Group (n= 137) Control Group (n= 141) p-value
Composite inpatient readmission and ED visit 34 (24.8%) 55 (38.7%) 0.001
ED visits 6 (4.4%) 21 (14.8%) 0.005
Inpatient readmissions 28 (20.4%) 34 (23.9%) 0.43
Medication-related readmissions 8 (23.5%) 13 (23.6%) 1.0
ADEs/MEs reported at 30-day phone call 11/84 patients 18/86 patients 0.22
HCAHPS scores pertaining to knowledge of indication of medication question

Pre-intervention: 47%

Post-intervention: 56%

Adverse Events Eighteen patients (12.8%) in the control group experienced an ADE or ME compared to 11 patients (8%) in the study group (p> 0.05).
Study Author Conclusions Pharmacist involvement in hospital discharge transitions of care had a positive impact on decreasing composite inpatient readmissions and ED visits. Statistically significant difference in medication-related events and HCAHPS scores were not observed. Patients with moderately complex medication regimens benefited from a continuity of care involving a pharmacy team during transitions in care.
Critique The study demonstrated a significant reduction in composite inpatient readmissions and ED visits with pharmacist involvement, highlighting the importance of continuity of care. However, the lack of statistically significant differences in medication-related events and HCAHPS scores suggests that the impact of pharmacist interventions may not have reached the threshold for detection. The study was limited by its single-center design, potential selection bias due to exclusion criteria, and reliance on subjective measures for ADEs and MEs. Future studies could benefit from a multicenter design and objective measures of ADEs and MEs.
Table 7 References:
[10] Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):39-44. doi:10.1002/jhm.2493

 

Reducing Readmission at an Academic Medical Center: Results of a Pharmacy-Facilitated Discharge Counseling and Medication Reconciliation Program
Design

Prospective, historical control study

N= 690

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a pharmacy-facilitated medication reconciliation and patient education model with post discharge follow-up on 30-day readmissions

Study Groups

Intervention group (n= 465)

Control group (n= 225)

Inclusion Criteria All patients admitted during a 6-month period to a general medicine unit with the highest 30-day readmission rate at Yale-New Haven Hospital
Exclusion Criteria Patients who expired prior to discharge, transferred, left against medical advice, were discharged to hospice, or were previously enrolled in the study
Methods Pharmacy technicians compiled medication reconciliation information upon admission. Pharmacists communicated with the patient's primary team, performed medication and disease state counseling, and conducted final medication reconciliation before discharge. Follow-up phone calls were made 24 to 72 hours after discharge to identify medication-related issues. 
Duration

October 2011 through March 2012

Outcome Measures

Primary: 30-day readmission rates

Secondary: Total number of pharmacist-identified medication reconciliation interventions, total pharmacy resource utilization, identification of patients at high risk for readmission

Baseline Characteristics   Intervention group (n= 465)
Male 331 (48%)
Mean age, years 61
Mean length of stay, days 5.6
Mean number of admission medications 7.7
Primary reason for admission - Pneumonia 25.9%
Primary reason for admission - Alcohol withdrawal 13.0%
Primary reason for admission - COPD/Asthma 9.9%
Primary reason for admission - Congestive heart failure 3.1%
Primary reason for admission - Other 48.1%
Results   Intervention group (n= 465) Control group (n= 225) p-value
30-day readmission rate 18% 24.7% 0.009
30-day readmission rate compared to previous year 18% 26.2% 0.002

A total of 546 pharmacist-identified medication interventions were performed during the study period. 

The medication reconcilation technician spent an average of 23.7 minutes per patient. Verifying medication lists with outpatient pharmacies, physicians’ offices, or insurance companies required an additional 7.1 minutes (30%). They spent an average of 4.4 minutes (19%) on initial medication reconciliation and reporting to pharmacists. On the other hand, pharmacists spent an average of 28.9 minutes per patient. Pharmacists spent 10.1 minutes (35%) performing medication reconciliation at discharge, 8.8 minutes providing medication education (30%), 6.6 minutes on admission medication reconciliation (23%), and 3.4 minutes (12%) on the postdischarge phone call. 

Study Author Conclusions Pharmacy-facilitated medication reconciliation and patient education of medicine patients decreased 30-day readmission rates.
Critique The study demonstrated a significant reduction in readmission rates, highlighting the effectiveness of pharmacy-facilitated interventions. However, the study's reliance on historical control data and the inability to reach all eligible patients due to logistical constraints may introduce bias. The lack of randomization and potential seasonal variations are additional limitations. Despite these, the study provides valuable insights into the role of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in reducing readmissions.



Table 8 References:
[11] Zemaitis CT, Morris G, Cabie M, Abdelghany O, Lee L. Reducing Readmission at an Academic Medical Center: Results of a Pharmacy-Facilitated Discharge Counseling and Medication Reconciliation Program. Hosp Pharm. 2016;51(6):468-473. doi:10.1310/hpj5106-468