Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The problem with medication reconciliation
  1. Joshua M Pevnick1,
  2. Rita Shane2,
  3. Jeffrey L Schnipper3
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California, USA
  2. 2Department of Pharmacy Services, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California, USA
  3. 3BWH Hospitalist Service and Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joshua M Pevnick, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Health System, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA; Joshua.Pevnick{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

‘The Problem with…’ series covers controversial topics related to efforts to improve healthcare quality, including widely recommended but deceptively difficult strategies for improvement and pervasive problems that seem to resist solution.

Medication reconciliation: a brief summary of the evidence, and the problem with generalising that evidence

Medication reconciliation (‘med rec’, as it is often called) refers to the ‘process of identifying the most accurate list of all medications a patient is taking … and using this list to provide correct medications for patients anywhere within the health system’.1 Two recent systematic reviews summarised the evidence for med rec interventions, finding that several med rec interventions reduced medication history errors and errors in patients’ admission and discharge medication regimens.2 ,3 Despite documented efficacy in reducing errors, there are caveats. An earlier literature review showed that the clinical significance of medication history errors varies substantially—between 11% and 59%.4 Furthermore, although errors associated with harm were prevented in those studies that examined it,2 adverse drug events (ADEs) have been infrequently examined. Also, only a few studies have shown decreased healthcare usage,5 ,6 and to our knowledge none have shown direct cost savings.

Despite imperfect evidence, The US Joint Commission and Accreditation Canada initially mandated universal med rec in 2005.7 ,8 In addition to the subset of aforementioned evidence in existence at that time, these mandates were driven by frequent anecdotes of ADEs related to med rec errors and strong face-validity of preserving and communicating medication information across patient encounters. Unfortunately, although some organisations mobilised substantial resources to comply with these mandates, other organisations undoubtedly improved documentation of med rec (as per the mandate requirements) rather than actual medication safety.9 Although most studies of med rec interventions report positive results, at least one review found publication bias:2 many negative experiences associated with med rec interventions were never reported. …

View Full Text


  • Contributors JMP drafted the manuscript. JMP, RS and JLS worked together to revise the manuscript.

  • Funding This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science of the National Institutes of Health under awards K23AG049181 and UCLA CTSI KL2TR000122 (JMP). MARQUIS (R18 HS019598) received research funding, and MARQUIS2 (R18 HS023757) currently receives research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (JLS). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Institutes of Health.

  • Competing interests Prior to the conception of this project, JLS completed an investigator-initiated grant from Sanofi-Aventis to develop and evaluate a multifaceted intervention to improve transitions of care in patients with diabetes discharged on insulin.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.