Design of MARQUIS2: study protocol for a mentored implementation study of an evidence-based toolkit to improve patient safety through medication reconciliation.

BackgroundThe first Multi-center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals. We sought to implement the MARQUIS toolkit in more diverse hospitals, incorporating lessons learned from MARQUIS1.MethodsMARQUIS2 is a pragmatic, mentored implementation QI study which collected clinical and implementation outcomes. Sites implemented a revised toolkit, which included interventions from these domains: 1) best possible medication history (BPMH)-taking; 2) discharge medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver counseling; 3) identifying and defining clinician roles and responsibilities; 4) risk stratification; 5) health information technology improvements; 6) improved access to medication sources; 7) identification and correction of real-time discrepancies; and, 8) stakeholder engagement. Eight hospitalists mentored the sites via one site visit and monthly phone calls over the 18-month intervention period. Each site's local QI team assessed opportunities to improve, implemented at least one of the 17 toolkit components, and accessed a variety of resources (e.g. implementation manual, webinars, and workshops). Outcomes to be assessed will include unintentional medication discrepancies per patient.DiscussionA mentored multi-center medication reconciliation QI initiative using a best practices toolkit was successfully implemented across 18 medical centers. The 18 participating sites varied in size, teaching status, location, and electronic health record (EHR) platform. We introduce barriers to implementation and lessons learned from MARQUIS1, such as the importance of utilizing dedicated, trained medication history takers, simple EHR solutions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and the input of patients and families when improving medication reconciliation

Blunt traumatic diaphragmatic hernia: Pictorial review of CT signs

Blunt diaphragmatic rupture rarely accounts for immediate mortality and may go clinically silent until complications occur which can be life threatening. Although many imaging techniques have proven useful for the diagnosis of blunt diaphragmatic rupture, multidetector CT (MDCT) is considered to be the reference standard for the diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury. Numerous CT signs indicating blunt diaphragmatic rupture have been described in literature with variable significance. Accurate diagnosis depends upon the analysis of all the signs rather than a single sign; however, the presence of blunt diaphragmatic rupture should be considered in the presence of any of the described signs. We present a pictorial review of various CT signs used to diagnose blunt diaphragmatic injury. Multiplanar reconstruction is very useful; however, predominantly axial sections have been described in this pictorial review as the images shown are from dual-slice CT

Test Result Management in Global Health Settings

Across the globe, the ways in which patients’ test results are managed are as varied as the many different types of healthcare systems that manage these data. The outcomes, however, are often not too dissimilar: too many clinically significant test results fall through the cracks. The consequences of not following up test results in a timely manner are serious and often devastating to patients: diagnoses are delayed, treatments are not initiated or altered in time, and diseases progress. In resource-poor settings, test results too commonly get filed away within the paper chart in ways that isolate them and prevent passage to future providers caring for a patient. To make matters worse, the onus to act upon these test results often rests on patients who need to return to the clinic within a specified timeframe in order to obtain their results but who may not have the means or are too ill to do so. Even in more developed healthcare settings that use electronic records, clinical data residing in the electronic medical record (EMR) are often stubbornly “static”—-key pieces of clinical information are frequently not recognized, retrieved, or shared easily. In this way, EMRs are not unlike paper record systems, and therefore, EMRs alone will not solve this problem. To illustrate this problem, consider the case of a patient newly diagnosed with HIV in 3 different healthcare delivery settings. </jats:p