International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 933–942 | Cite as

Implementation of a shared medication list: physicians’ views on availability, accuracy and confidentiality

  • Tora HammarEmail author
  • Anders Ekedahl
  • Göran Petersson
Research Article


Background Physicians, patients and others involved need to have accurate information on patients’ current drug prescriptions available, and have that information protected from unauthorized access. During the past decade, many counties in Sweden have implemented regionally shared medication lists within health care. Objective The aim of this study was to describe physicians’ views on changes in accuracy, availability and confidentiality in the transition from local medication lists to a regionally shared medication list. Setting Health care units in four different counties of Sweden after the transition from local medication lists to a regionally shared medication list. The shared medication list was an integrated part of the electronic health record system in the respective counties, but the system and implementation process varied. Methods Physicians (n = 7) with experience of transition from local medication lists to a regionally shared medication list were interviewed in a semi-structured manner. Main outcome measure: Physicians’ views on changes in information risks, focusing on accuracy, availability and confidentiality. Results The transition from local medication lists to a shared medication list increased the availability of information: from being time consuming or not possible to access from other care givers to most information being available in one place. A regionally shared medication list was perceived as having the potential to provide a greater accuracy of information, but not always: the shared medication list was perceived as more complete but with more non-current drugs. On the other hand, a shared medication list implied an increased risk of violating patient privacy, placing greater demands on IT security in order to protect the confidentiality of information. Conclusion Physicians perceived a regionally shared medication list to increase the availability of information about current prescriptions and potentially the accuracy but may decrease the confidentiality of information. To implement a shared medication list, we recommend providing clear description of responsibilities and routines for normal activities as well as back-up routines, consider IT-security and data protection early, involve patients to improve the accuracy of the list as well as to monitor and evaluate the implementation.


Accuracy Availability Confidentiality Information safety Medication list Medication reconciliation Sweden 



The authors thank Benny Pun, BSc, for assistance with litterature search and translation of some material for the manuscript.


Funding by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, the Swedish Medical Products Agency and Linnaeus University.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hovstadius B, Hovstadius K, Astrand B, Petersson G. Increasing polypharmacy—an individual-based study of the Swedish population 2005–2008. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2010;10:16.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(5):585–600.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, Overhage JM, Shabot MM, Sheridan T. White paper—reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(4):299–308.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roughead EE, Kalisch LM, Barratt JD, Gilbert AL. Prevalence of potentially hazardous drug interactions amongst Australian veterans. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(2):252–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wester K, Jonsson AK, Spigset O, Druid H, Hagg S. Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(4):573–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(7):1017–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leendertse AJ, Visser D, Egberts AC, van den Bemt PM. The relationship between study characteristics and the prevalence of medication-related hospitalizations: a literature review and novel analysis. Drug Saf. 2010;33(3):233–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonsson AK, Hakkarainen KM, Spigset O, Druid H, Hiselius A, Hagg S. Preventable drug related mortality in a Swedish population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(2):211–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howard RL, Avery AJ, Howard PD, Partridge M. Investigation into the reasons for preventable drug related admissions to a medical admissions unit: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(4):280–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tully MP, Kettis A, Hoglund AT, Morlin C, Schwan A, Ljungberg C. Transfer of data or re-creation of knowledge - experiences of a shared electronic patient medical records system. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(6):965–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sinnemaki J, Sihvo S, Isojarvi J, Blom M, Airaksinen M, Mantyla A. Automated dose dispensing service for primary healthcare patients: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2013;2:1.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sjoberg C, Edward C, Fastbom J, Johnell K, Landahl S, Narbro K, et al. Association between multi-dose drug dispensing and quality of drug treatment–a register-based study. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26574.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Handler SM, Dolovich LR, Holbrook AM, O’Reilly D, et al. The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):22–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tamblyn R, Poissant L, Huang A, Winslade N, Rochefort CM, Moraga T, et al. Estimating the information gap between emergency department records of community medication compared to on-line access to the community-based pharmacy records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):391–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rahmner PB, Gustafsson LL, Holmstrom I, Rosenqvist U, Tomson G. Whose job is it anyway? Swedish general practitioners’ perception of their responsibility for the patient’s drug list. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(1):40–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janzek-Hawlat S, Ammenwerth E, Dorda W, Duftschmid G, Hackl W, Horbst A, et al. The Austrian e-Medikation pilot evaluation: lessons learned from a national medication list. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:347–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stock R, Mahoney ER, Gauthier D, Center L, Minniti M, Scott J, et al. Developing a Community-Wide Electronic Shared Medication List. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol 4: Technology and Medication Safety). Advances in Patient Safety. Rockville (MD)2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ekedahl A, Brosius H, Jonsson J, Karlsson H, Yngvesson M. Discrepancies between the electronic medical record, the prescriptions in the Swedish national prescription repository and the current medication reported by patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(11):1177–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Balon J, Thomas SA. Comparison of hospital admission medication lists with primary care physician and outpatient pharmacy lists. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2011;43(3):292–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Picton C, H. W. Keeping patients safe when they transfer between care providers—getting the medicines right. 2012;288(7710):718.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Linsky A, Simon SR. Medication discrepancies in integrated electronic health records. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(2):103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitzsimons M, Grimes T, Galvin M. Sources of pre-admission medication information: observational study of accuracy and availability. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19(6):408–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tamblyn R, Huang AR, Meguerditchian AN, Winslade NE, Rochefort C, Forster A, et al. Using novel Canadian resources to improve medication reconciliation at discharge: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:150.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leonhardt KK, Pagel P, Bonin D, Moberg DP, Dvorak ML, Hatlie MJ. Creating an Accurate Medication List in the Outpatient Setting Through a Patient-Centered Approach. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol 3: Performance and Tools). Advances in Patient Safety. Rockville (MD)2008.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teinila T, Kaunisvesi K, Airaksinen M. Primary care physicians’ perceptions of medication errors and error prevention in cooperation with community pharmacists. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2011;7(2):162–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weeks DL, Corbett CF, Stream G. Beliefs of ambulatory care physicians about accuracy of patient medication records and technology-enhanced solutions to improve accuracy. J Healthc Qual. 2010;32(5):12–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ekedahl A. Patients’ information on their prescribed current treatment. Journal of pharmaceutical health services research. 2012;3(2):79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Remen VM, Grimsmo A. Closing information gaps with shared electronic patient summaries: how much will it matter? Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(11):775–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vogelsmeier A, Pepper GA, Oderda L, Weir C. Medication reconciliation: A qualitative analysis of clinicians’ perceptions. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(4):419–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Deursen N, Buchanan WJ, Duff A. Monitoring information security risks within health care. Computers & Security. 2013;37:31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neame R. Effective sharing of health records, maintaining privacy: a practical schema. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013;5(2):217.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ljungberg C. Prerequisites and responsibility for appropriate prescribing - the prescribers view [dissertation]. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet; 2010.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kierkegaard P. E-Prescription across Europe. Health and Technology. 2012;3(3):205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kierkegaard P. eHealth in Denmark: A Case Study. J Med Syst. 2013;37(6):9991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kierkegaard P. Electronic health record: Wiring Europe’s healthcare. Computer Law & Security Review. 2011;27(5):503–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Deutsch E, Duftschmid G, Dorda W. Critical areas of national electronic health record programs-is our focus correct? Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(3):211–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suna T. Finnish National Archive of Health Information (KanTa). Fujitsu Sci Tech. 2011;47(1):49–57.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ekedahl A, Tärning E, Rutberg H, Yngevesson M, Hoffman M. [In Swedish] [Errors in the pharmaceutical and prescription lists are very common. Patient data on prescriptions compared with medical records and prescription database] Mycket vanligt med fel i läkemedels- och receptlistorna. Läkartidningen. 2012;109(20-21).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rosenthal TC. The medical home: growing evidence to support a new approach to primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21(5):427–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Midlöf P. Drug-related problems in the elderly - Interventions to improve the quality of pharmacotherapy [dissertation]. Lund: Lund University; 2006.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Powell J, Fitton R, Fitton C. Sharing electronic health records: the patient view. Inform Prim Care. 2006;14(1):55–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Keers RN, Williams SD, Cooke J, Ashcroft DM. Causes of medication administration errors in hospitals: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Drug Saf. 2013;36(11):1045–67.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Keers RN, Williams SD, Cooke J, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence and nature of medication administration errors in health care settings: a systematic review of direct observational evidence. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(2):237–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jokela P, Karlsudd P, Östlund M. Theory, method and tools for evaluation using a systems-based approach. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation. 2008;3(11):197–212.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wallerstedt SM, Fastbom J, Johnell K, Sjoberg C, Landahl S, Sundstrom A. Drug treatment in older people before and after the transition to a multi-dose drug dispensing system–a longitudinal analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67088.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hammar T, Nyström S, Petersson G, Rydberg T, Åstrand B. Swedish pharmacists value ePrescribing: a survey of a nation-wide implementation. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2010;1(1):23–32.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Montelius E, Astrand B, Hovstadius B, Petersson G. Individuals appreciate having their medication record on the web: a survey of attitudes to a national pharmacy register. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(4):e35.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.eHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and OptometryLinnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden

Personalised recommendations