Background: Ambulatory medication reconciliation can reduce the frequency of medication discrepancies and may also reduce adverse drug events. Patients receiving dialysis are at high risk for medication discrepancies because they typically have multiple comorbid conditions, are taking many medications, and are receiving care from many practitioners. Little is known about the potential benefits of ambulatory medication reconciliation for these patients. Objectives: To determine the number, type, and potential level of harm associated with medication discrepancies identified through ambulatory medication reconciliation and to ascertain the views of community pharmacists and family physicians about this service. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved patients initiating hemodialysis who received ambulatory medication reconciliation in a hospital renal program over the period July 2014 to July 2016. Discrepancies identified on the medication reconciliation forms for study patients were extracted and categorized by discrepancy type and potential level of harm. The level of harm was determined independently by a pharmacist and a nurse practitioner using a defined scoring system. In the event of disagreement, a nephrologist determined the final score. Surveys were sent to 52 community pharmacists and 44 family physicians involved in the care of study patients to collect their opinions and perspectives on ambulatory medication reconciliation. Results: Ambulatory medication reconciliation was conducted 296 times for a total of 147 hemodialysis patients. The mean number of discrepancies identified per patient was 1.31 (standard deviation 2.00). Overall, 30% of these discrepancies were deemed to have the potential to cause moderate to severe patient discomfort or clinical deterioration. Survey results indicated that community practitioners found ambulatory medication reconciliation valuable for providing quality care to dialysis patients. Conclusions: This study has provided evidence that ambulatory medication reconciliation can increase patient safety and potentially prevent adverse events associated with medication discrepancies.

Purpose of Program: Glomerulonephritis (GN) is a group of rare kidney diseases that is increasingly being managed with higher cost immunosuppressive (IS) agents in Canada. Ontario Health’s Ontario Renal Network (ORN) oversees the management and delivery of GN services in the province. Stakeholder surveys previously conducted by ORN identified that both clinicians and patients do not perceive access to GN medications as comprehensive or timely. The program conducted a focused jurisdictional scan among 7 provinces to inform ORN initiatives to improve access to GN medications. Specifically, the program examined clinician experience with GN access, public drug coverage criteria, and timelines for public coverage for select IS agents (ie, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil [MMF], mycophenolate sodium, rituximab, and eculizumab) used to manage GN in adults who live in Canada. Methods: For the selected IS agents, a focused jurisdictional scan on medication access was conducted by ORN in 2018 and updated in July 2022. Information was obtained by searching the gray literature and/or credible online sources for public funding policies and eligibility criteria. Findings were supplemented by personal communications with provincial drug programs and consulting GN clinical experts from 7 provinces (ie, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Quebec). Key Findings: Clinicians from different provinces prescribe IS agents similarly for GN indications, despite distinctions in public drug funding policies. While patients can obtain public funding for many IS agents, for GN, most provinces rely on case-by-case review processes. In addition, provinces can vary in their funding criteria and which IS agents are listed on the public formulary. For IS agents that require prior authorization or case-by-case review, timelines vary by province with decisions taking a few days to weeks. British Columbia, with a GN-specific drug formulary, had the most integrated and efficient system for patients and prescribers. Limitations: This scan primarily relied on publicly available information for drug coverage criteria and clinician experience with access in their province. Since this scan was conducted, public drug coverage criteria and/or application processes may have changed. Implications: While patients in most provinces have similar needs and nephrologists similar prescribing patterns, gaps still exist for publicly funded GN medications. Interprovincial differences in the drugs funded, funding criteria, and application process may affect timely and equitable access to GN medications across Canada. Given the rarity of GN, a pan-Canadian funding approach may be warranted to improve the current state.

-