Poster  Print  Size:  This  poster  template  is  48”  high  by  48”  wide.  It  can  be  used  to  print  any  poster  with  a  1:1  aspect  ra?o.  

Placeholders:  The  various  elements  included  in  this  poster  are  ones  we  oAen  see  in  medical,  research,  and  scien?fic  posters.  Feel  free  to  edit,  move,    add,  and  delete  items,  or  change  the  layout  to  suit  your  needs.  Always  check  with  your  conference  organizer  for  specific  requirements.  

Image  Quality:  You  can  place  digital  photos  or  logo  art  in  your  poster  file  by  selec?ng  the  Insert,  Picture  command,  or  by  using  standard  copy  &  paste.  For  best  results,  all  graphic  elements  should  be  at  least  150-­‐200  pixels  per  inch  in  their  final  printed  size.  For  instance,  a  1600  x  1200  pixel  photo  will  usually  look  fine  up  to  8“-­‐10”  wide  on  your  printed  poster.  To  preview  the  print  quality  of  images,  select  a  magnifica?on  of  100%  when  previewing  your  poster.  This  will  give  you  a  good  idea  of  what  it  will  look  like  in  print.  If  you  are  laying  out  a  large  poster  and  using  half-­‐scale  dimensions,  be  sure  to  preview  your  graphics  at  200%  to  see  them  at  their  final  printed  size.  Please  note  that  graphics  from  websites  (such  as  the  logo  on  your  hospital's  or  university's  home  page)  will  only  be  72dpi  and  not  suitable  for  prin?ng.  

 [This  sidebar  area  does  not  print.]  

Change  Color  Theme:  This  template  is  designed  to  use  the  built-­‐in  color  themes  in  the  newer  versions  of  PowerPoint.  To  change  the  color  theme,  select  the  Design  tab,  then  select  the  Colors  drop-­‐down  list.                    The  default  color  theme  for  this  template  is  “Office”,  so  you  can  always  return  to  that  aAer  trying  some  of  the  alterna?ves.  

Prin?ng  Your  Poster:  Once  your  poster  file  is  ready,  visit  www.genigraphics.com  to  order  a  high-­‐quality,  affordable  poster  print.  Every  order  receives  a  free  design  review  and  we  can  deliver  as  fast  as  next  business  day  within  the  US  and  Canada.    Genigraphics®  has  been  producing  output  from  PowerPoint®  longer  than  anyone  in  the  industry;  da?ng  back  to  when  we  helped  MicrosoA®  design  the  PowerPoint®  soAware.      US  and  Canada:    1-­‐800-­‐790-­‐4001  Email:  info@genigraphics.com  

 [This  sidebar  area  does  not  print.]  

Validation of Best Possible Medication History: Comparison Between Telephone and In-Person Interview

Smith-Morris AD1,2, Ceretzke K1, Deschamps M1, and Lyons B1  1)  Saskatoon  Cancer  Centre,  Saskatoon,  SK    2)  College  of  Pharmacy  and  Nutri?on,  University  of  Saskatchewan,  Saskatoon,  SK    

References:  

A best possible medication history (BPMH) is considered the most accurate medication l ist and is widely performed via a s tanda rd i zed i n -pe rson i n te rv iew. Telephone interviews offer scheduling flexibility and do not encroach on valuable clinic time. However it is essential to verify accuracy between techniques. We explored if a BPMH by telephone interviews is comparable with results obtained from in-person interviews. At the Saskatoon Cancer Centre (SCC) (February 23 and March 4, 2016), ten randomly selected patients underwent telephone BPMHs performed by pharmacy staff. For validation, in-person BPMHs were collected during scheduled clinic visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of discrepancies between the BPMHs obtained.

Background   A total of 22 discrepancies were identified between telephone and in-person BPMHs. Discrepancies were further categorized as drug (n=10, 45%), drug dosage (n=9, 41%), and allergies (n=3, 14%). (Figure 1) A d d i t i o n a l l y, d i s c r e p a n c i e s w e r e categorized on potential to impact therapy: mild, moderate, and severe. Majority of discrepancies (n=18; 82%) were considered mild. (Figure 2) This study displays in-person and telephone interviews result in comparable BPMHs. Majority of discrepancies were of mild clinical significance.

ObjecIve  

Design    

Conclusions  

Results  

Further  InformaIon:  Amy Smith-Morris Email: amy.smith@saskcancer.ca  

Figure  2:  Best  Possible  MedicaIon  History  (BPMH)  ValidaIon  Discrepancies  According  to  PotenIal  to  

Impact  Therapy  

PotenIal  to  Impact  Therapy  by  Discrepancy  Category    

Figure  1:  Discrepancies  IdenIfied  Through  Best  Possible  MedicaIon  History  (BPMH)  

ValidaIon  

Allergy    

Dosage  

Drug  

0  

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

6  

7  

mild  

mod

erate  

severe  

mild  

mod

erate  

severe  

mild  

mod

erate  

severe  

mild  

mod

erate  

severe  

mild  

mod

erate  

severe  

Allergies   Dosage  Discrepancy  (prescrip?on)  

Dosage  Discrepancy  (non-­‐

prescrip?on)    

Drug  Discrepancy  (prescrip?on)  

Drug  Discrepancy  (non-­‐

prescrip?on)  

Num

ber  o

f  BPM

H  Va

lidaI

on  Discrep

ancies    

1) Cooper, J., Lilliston, M., Brooks, D., & Swords, B. Experience with a pharmacy technician medication history program. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2014: 71(18): 1567-1574. 2) Glintborg, B., Hillestrøm, P., Olsen, L., Dalhoff, K., & Poulsen, H. Are patients reliable when self-reporting medication use? Validation of structured drug interviews and home visits by drug analysis and prescription data in acutely hospitalized patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 47(11): 1440-1449. 3) Medication reconciliation in acute care - getting started kit. (2011) (3rd ed.). Toronto, Ontario. Accessed from:https://www.ismp-canada.org/download/MedRec/Medrec_AC_English_GSK_V3.pdf