Abstract
Introduction: Medication reconciliation plays a crucial role in detecting and preventing medication errors, thereby enhancing the safety of pharmacotherapy administered to hospitalized patients. Changes made to medication therapy upon patient admission and throughout their hospital stay can lead to medication errors and increased adverse drug events. Pharmacist intervention in this context serves as a tool for preventing or resolving issues identified during the reconciliation process, constituting an integral part of pharmacotherapeutic monitoring. Objective: The objective of this study is to quantify and evaluate medication reconciliations and pharmacist interventions conducted at the Clinical Pharmacy Unit of a University Hospital in Salvador, Bahia. Methods: This is a retrospective, quantitative, and descriptive study. It includes patients admitted to 13 units supervised by clinical pharmacists from September 2020 to September 2022, with an expected length of stay exceeding 48 hours. Medication reconciliation was performed by comparing the admission prescription with information obtained from the patient and/or family within 48 hours of admission based on the patient's home medication list. Pharmacist interventions were carried out with the prescribing professionals through critical analysis of the prescription. This study is approved by the Ethics Committee under number 4,465,789. Results and Discussion: During the study period, 14,342 patients were assisted. Out of these, 6,103 patients met the criteria for medication reconciliation, and 5,126 patients (84%) underwent reconciliation. Among the reconciliations performed, 8,054 discrepancies were identified, with 7,495 (93.06%) being justified and 559 (6.94%) unjustified discrepancies. A total of 9,810 pharmacist interventions were conducted, with 8,770 (89.2%) fully accepted, 628 (6.4%) partially accepted, and 412 (4.2%) not accepted. Within these interventions, 874 (8.9%) were related to inconsistencies found in the wording of medical prescriptions. Prescription errors are preventable events but still pose a significant risk of medication errors, even with the implementation of electronic prescriptions, thereby remaining a challenge in clinical pharmacy practice. Conclusion: The performance of clinical pharmacists in medication reconciliation and their early intervention are essential for ensuring the continuity of patient treatment safely. This approach allows for the identification and prevention of potential medication errors and medication-related problems.Introduction: The National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in the Unified Health System (Conitec) plays a crucial role in advising Brazil's Ministry of Health on decisions regarding the incorporation, exclusion, or modification of health technologies within the Unified Health System (SUS). Conitec's decisions are based on technical and scientific evaluations, as well as public input through consultations. These consultations are made available on Conitec's website, allowing individuals and organizations to express their opinions and share their experiences regarding the technologies under assessment. Objectives: This study aims to analyze the profile of participants who contributed to experience and opinion forms during public consultations conducted by Conitec for the evaluation of health technologies from 2015 to 2021. Methods: Data analyzed were provided by the Executive Secretariat of Conitec and included information from contributions received through experience and opinion forms during the mentioned public consultations. The analysis focused on the type of health technology evaluated, participant profiles by type (family members, friends, caregivers, interested parties, healthcare professionals, patients, groups/associations/organizations of patients), gender, age group, race/ethnicity, and region of residence. Results: During the analyzed period, 256 public consultations were held for the evaluation of medications, 46 for procedures, and 22 for health products. Regarding participant profiles, it was found that 39% were family members, friends, or caregivers of patients related to the evaluated technology, followed by 32% interested parties, 15% healthcare professionals, 13% patients, and 1% groups/associations/organizations of patients. In terms of gender, 70% of participants were female and 30% were male. Regarding age groups, 48% of participants were aged 25-39 years and 36% were aged 40-59 years. Participants identified as White accounted for 69%, mixed-race (Pardo) 24%, Black 5%, and Asian 2%. Regarding regions of residence, 55% were from the Southeast, 18% from the South, 17% from the Northeast, 7% from the Midwest, and 3% from the North. Conclusion: The results highlight disparities in participant profiles, indicating weaknesses in the outreach of public consultations. This data underscores the need to plan future actions aligned with SUS equality principles, aiming to foster diverse participation in terms of age, race/ethnicity, gender, and region.
