{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024352331606217616, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006735751295336788, 'mean_word_length': 5.847517730496454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Medication reconciliation interventions in ambulatory care: A scoping review.

PURPOSE
The published literature on medication reconciliation (MR) interventions, outcomes, and facilitators in ambulatory care settings is reviewed.


METHODS
A scoping review was conducted to characterize ambulatory care-based MR research in terms of study design, elements of interventions, and outcomes examined. English-language articles on comparative studies of MR programs targeting adults in ambulatory care settings were identified using data sources including MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. For each study, steps undertaken in the MR process were extracted. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy was used to classify types of interventions; taxonomies for reported outcomes and factors facilitating implementation of MR initiatives were developed by the authors.


RESULTS
From among 2062 publications screened, 15 were included in the review. In 13 studies, multiple data sources were used to compile a "best possible medication history" (BPMH); however, the BPMH was shared with external healthcare providers in only 4 studies and with patients in only 5 studies. Most reported MR interventions were classified into two EPOC domains: professional (predominantly educational outreach visits and patient reminders) and organizational (predominantly provider-oriented interventions). Process outcomes were reported in 12 studies, with correct performance of MR being the most commonly evaluated process outcome, and 9 studies identified factors that facilitated MR implementation.


CONCLUSION
Few studies have examined clinical outcomes of MR in ambulatory care settings, with the majority of pertinent reports focusing instead on process outcomes. Facilitators of successful MR interventions have been identified at the patient, staff, and clinic setting levels.