Background:Clear processes to facilitate medication reconciliation in a hospital setting are still undefined. The observation unit allows for a high patient turnover rate, where obtaining accurate medication histories is critical.Objectives:The objective of this study was to assess the ability of pharmacists and student pharmacists to identify discrepancies in medication histories obtained at triage in observation patients.Methods:Pharmacists and student pharmacists obtained a medication history for each patient placed in observation status. Patients were excluded if they were unable to provide a medication history and family, caregiver, or community pharmacy was also unable to provide the history. A comparison was made between triage and pharmacy collected medication histories to identify discrepancies.Results:A total of 501 medications histories were collected, accounting for 3213 medication records. There were 1176 (37%) matched medication records and 1467 discrepancies identified, including 808 (55%) omissions, 296 (20.2%) wrong frequency, 278 (19%) wrong dose, 51 (3.5%) discontinued, and 34 (2.3%) wrong medication. There was an average of 2.9 discrepancies per patient profile. In all, 76 (15%) of the profiles were matched. The median time to obtain a medication history was 4 min (range: 1–48 min).Conclusion:Pharmacy collected medication histories in an observation unit identify discrepancies that can be reconciled by the interdisciplinary team.

Purpose:Multimodal analgesia is common practice in the postoperative setting, but the utility of adjunctive analgesia in the emergency department (ED) is less understood. The primary objective of this study was to analyze ED prescriber ordering habits for adjunct nonopioid pain medication for opioid-naïve patients who require intravenous (IV) morphine or hydromorphone for acute pain. Secondary objectives were to assess initial and total opioid consumption in morphine equivalent units (MEU), pain scores, and ED length of stay (LOS) between groups. Methods: A retrospective chart review of adult patients who presented to the ED at a large academic medical center and received IV morphine or hydromorphone for acute pain was conducted. Patients were analyzed according to initial opioid received and presence or absence of adjunct nonopioid analgesics. Results: A total of 102 patient charts were analyzed. Adjunctive nonopioid analgesics were ordered on 38% of patients. Patients who received an adjunct nonopioid analgesic received a smaller mean initial opioid dose than those who did not (4.73 vs 5.48 MEU, p = .08). Initial pain score reduction on the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) did not differ between patients who received adjunct analgesics versus those who did not (3 vs 4, p = .75). Patients who received adjunct analgesics were associated with a decreased ED LOS (294 vs 342 minutes, p = .04). Conclusion: A small proportion of patients with acute pain received a nonopioid analgesic in conjunction to IV opioids. Further studies are warranted to assess the impact of adjunct analgesics for patients with acute pain.

Urine drug screens (UDSs) are used to identify the presence of certain medications. One limitation of UDSs is the potential for false-positive results caused by cross-reactivity with other substances. Amphetamines have an extensive list of cross-reacting medications. The literature contains reports of false-positive amphetamine UDSs with multiple antidepressants and antipsychotics. We present 2 cases of presumed false-positive UDSs for amphetamines after ingestion of aripiprazole. Case 1 was a 16-month-old girl who accidently ingested 15 to 45 mg of aripiprazole. She was lethargic and ataxic at home with 1 episode of vomiting containing no identifiable tablets. She remained sluggish with periods of irritability and was admitted for observation. UDS on 2 consecutive days came back positive for amphetamines. Case 2 was of a 20-month-old girl who was brought into the hospital after accidental ingestion of an unknown quantity of her father's medications which included aripiprazole. UDS on the first day of admission came back positive only for amphetamines. Confirmatory testing with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) on the blood and urine samples were also performed for both patients on presentation to detect amphetamines and were subsequently negative. Both patients returned to baseline and were discharged from the hospital. To our knowledge, these cases represent the first reports of false-positive amphetamine urine drug tests with aripiprazole.