Browsing by Subject "lääkitysturvallisuus"

Medication safety is an important target of development in health and social services systems internationally. Medication errors are one of the biggest risk factors in medication safety. Majority of the medication incidents could be avoided by improving the medication treatment process. Patient safety incident reporting systems enable health and social services to collect systematic data from risk factors within the medication treatment process. This study was conducted as a retrospective registry-based study where medication incidents that occurred in health and social care units reported by community pharmacies to the incident reporting system HaiPro from 21st of September 2021 to 31st of October 2022 were analysed. Cases that did not meet the criteria for this study (n=55) were removed from the original data (n=3841). If needed, the nature and type of the reported error were corrected. A descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted for the final data (n=3786) using Microsoft Excel. The number, natures, types, observers, and prescription types of medication errors were investigated from the data. In addition, the most common groups of medicinal substance and high risk medicines were identified. A qualitive content analysis was performed to near miss cases involving high-risk medications (n=446) using the Atlas.ti program. Interventions, measures following the interventions and risks prevented by the measures were identified from the open description in the incident reports. The qualitative analysis was performed as an abductive content analysis. Of the medication errors included in the study (n=3786) 91% were detected by community pharmacies and the majority (68%) of the reported incidents were near misses. Most (96%) of the safety incidents (n=3786) were associated with the patient’s medication treatment and had occurred mostly during the prescribing process (92%). As a result from the prescribing errors, patients were most commonly prescribed wrong dose or strength of the medicine (26%) or the prescription lacked SIC marking (26%). High-risk medications occurred in 16% (n=591) of the incidents (n=3786). Most frequently detected high-risk medications were opioids (35 %). Three quarters (76 %) of safety incidents associated with high-risk medications were near misses (n=446). The majority (92 %) of interventions (n=471) made to prevent safety incidents associated with high-risk medications were made by community pharmacies. The most frequent intervention was community pharmacies contacting the doctor. Based on the HaiPro incident reports made about medication errors in health and social care units reported by community pharmacies, it can be concluded that community pharmacies are a central barrier in primary care medication treatment process. Community pharmacies detect and report medication errors that have occurred in other health and social care units. Safety incidents reported by pharmacies systematically accumulate important information that can be used in the development of medication safety in primary care at a unit, wellbeing services county and national levels.

Background and objectives: Documenting and processing of dispensing errors at both organizational and national levels is one of the basic preconditions for effective medication risk management. Since the most recently accomplished national register research of dispensing errors in Finland, there have been several changes in the medication dispensing process that advance medication safety. Thus, the previous study does not provide an up-to-date picture of the current situation. The primary objective of this study was to find out the trends in dispensing errors that were reported to the Finnish Pharmacy Association's registry of dispensing errors in 2015–2019. The secondary objective was to identify risk factors expository to dispensing errors in the dispensing process and to review the measures utilized by community pharmacies to prevent dispensing errors. Materials and methods: The retrospective registry study, in which the register of dispensing errors maintained by the Finnish Association of Pharmacists for the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019, was analyzed. Cases that did not fulfil the definition of a dispensing error (n=829) were removed from the original data (n=17763). In addition, clear errors (n=2130) were corrected in the data and cases (n=499) that were initially insufficiently entered in the register were added. 17433 dispensing errors were included in the study. The data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The number, qualities, prescription types, observers, therapeutic harms and contributory factors of the dispensing errors were investigated in the data. The most common groups of medicinal substance, high-alert medications and risk factors in the medication dispensing process were identified in the data. In addition, interventions reported by community pharmacies to prevent dispensing errors were collected from the data. Results: The number of cases reported to the dispensing error register has decreased annually (2015 n=3913, 2016 n=3795, 2017 n=3708, 2018 n=3578, 2019 n=2439). The most common types of dispensing errors are incorrect strength (51 % of all the reported dispensing errors) and incorrect quantity or package size (14 %). Slightly more than a half (51 %) of the reported dispensing errors were noticed by medicine users. The percentage of electronic prescriptions in dispensing errors has increased and is clearly the most common prescription type in dispensing errors (2015: 79 %, 2016: 84 %, 2017: 93 %, 2018: 96 %, 2019: 95 %). The majority of dispensing errors occurred with cardiovascular medicines (29 %) and medicines affecting the nervous system (26 %). 7 % of dispensing errors caused therapeutic harm to the medicine user. As a result of dispensing errors, 21 medicine users were hospitalized. 13 % of dispensing errors occurred with high-alert medications (n=2244). The high-alert medications were involved in one-third (n=7) of dispensing errors that led to hospitalization. Factors related to the employee (25 %), similar packaging (19 %), and similar medicine name (15%) were most commonly considered to be the main contributory factors for the occurrence of the dispensing errors. The risk factors identified in the medicine dispensing process were related to the pharmacy system, the characteristics of the prescription, the storage method of the medicine and the characteristics of the medicine packaging. In the automated dose dispensing process, the risk of dispensing error increased if changes had to be made to the dose dispensing order. The risk factors for automated dose dispensing were related to the pharmacy system and the characteristics of the prescription. The community pharmacies had mentioned taking measures to prevent dispensing errors in one-fifth (21 %) of the reported cases. In addition to developing their own operations, community pharmacies saw cooperation with other healthcare professionals as an important factor in preventing medication errors. In addition, community pharmacies reported exposing properties for dispensing errors of pharmaceutical products and systems to pharmaceutical companies and providers of pharmacy systems and automated dose dispensing. Conclusions: Trends, risk factors of the dispensing process and interventions to prevent dispensing errors can be identified in the dispensing errors reported to the Finnish Association of Pharmacists’ dispensing error registry. The dispensing error register provides valuable information on dispensing errors at the national level, but it is no longer able to fulfil completely the current medication safety needs. In the future, the role of the pharmacy as a promoter of medication safety should be perceived as more comprehensive. In the development of medication safety, special attention should be paid to the risk factors of the dispensing process, the high-alert medications and to new risks arising from the increase of electronic prescriptions and automated dose dispensing. In addition, cooperation between pharmacies and other healthcare professionals and the medication safety culture of pharmacies should be further strengthened.

Medication-related errors have been identified as the single most important risk factor for patient safety across the world. According to previous research, medication errors are common in nursing homes. However, the existing data on medication errors in Finnish nursing homes is scarce, although the challenges and defects in nursing home care services, including drug treatments, are well known. Furthermore, nursing home residents are typically characterized by old age, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Therefore, they are particularly vulnerable to potential adverse events caused by medication errors. The aim of this study was to investigate the rates and causes of medication errors reported in nursing homes and evaluate their impact on medication safety. Additionally, the proportions of potentially inappropriate medication (PIMs) and high-risk medication involved in the medication errors were determined. The data of the study consisted of 251 medication errors reports that were submitted to the safety incident report system (HaiPro) in nursing homes located in Central Uusimaa healthcare and social welfare joint municipal authority (Keusote) in 2019. Quantitative analysis of the data provided an overview of the medication errors that had occurred in nursing homes and the medicines most commonly involved in them. Content analysis and simplified root cause analysis enabled to study more in-depth the contributing factors of medication errors and potential risks associated with the medication process in nursing homes, as well as the possibilities of preventing similar errors in the future. James Reason's human error theory and in particular its system perspective was applied as a theoretical framework in this study. Medication errors were reported regularly in nursing homes during the follow-up period of the study. The most frequent medication error type was administration error. The majority of these errors were medication omissions, followed by the wrong time of administration and administration to the wrong patient. The most common drug classes causing medication errors were antithrombotics, opioids, antidementia drugs, diuretics, antipsychotics, antidiabetics, and antidepressants. Nearly a quarter of the reported medicines were high-risk medications, most commonly opioids, antithrombotics, or antidiabetic drugs. PIMs accounted for approximately 13% of all medications in the data. Errors were most often caused by unsafe medication practices, communication problems, and deficiencies in the work environment such as excessive workload or time pressure. A significant part of the medication errors were related to transdermal medication patches. The study also showed that the quality of medication error reporting in nursing homes is in part insufficient and should be improved so that the reports can be better used for learning purposes. The results of the study provide valuable additional information on medication errors in Finnish nursing homes and their contributing factors. The information can be used to improve medication safety practices in nursing homes. Safe and uninterrupted medication use process is a goal that should be pursued not only in health care but also in social welfare services such as nursing homes.

Medication reviews can be used to assess the appropriateness of a patient’s medication and to identify and resolve clinically significant drug-related problems. Medication reviews have been highlighted in several health and medicines policy documents as ways to improve medication safety in older adults. Collaborative practices and their development are key strategies in promoting the coordinated care of patients. Medication reviews have been previously defined from a multi-professional perspective but no definition based on multi-professional consensus has been established. The aim of this study was to harmonize the definition of medication review from a multi-professional perspective to suit various healthcare contexts in Finland. The goal was to create a shared understanding for physicians, nurses, pharmacists, information management professionals for their collaboration in reviewing medications. Furthermore, the aim was to define the tasks and responsibilities of different professional groups in collaborative medication reviews in order to support its implementation. The study was conducted as a 3-round survey using the Delphi method. The Delphi method is a qualitative consensus method based on the views of experts aiming at reaching consensus on the studied subject. The Delphi rounds were conducted as electronic surveys in September-December 2020. Expert panelists assessed the proposed definition of a collaborative medication review and the tasks and responsibilities of health care professionals involved in conducting it. The expert panel consisted of 41 participants: 12 physicians, 13 pharmacists, 10 nurses, and 6 information management professionals. The results of the study were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Consensus was reached on the definition of medication review from a multi-professional perspective, while no consensus was reached on most of the responsibilities and tasks of different healthcare professionals involved. Most challenging was to define patient groups benefiting from medication reviews and the situations in which medication reviews should be performed. Therefore, further research is needed to define the division of responsibilities between care team members, for example by defining separately the responsibilities and tasks in different healthcare contexts. This is the most comprehensive attempt taken in Finland to define medication review as a concept from a multi-professional perspective. The results of the study imply to the development and harmonizing of medication review practices and standardizing patient data documentation. The expected outcomes relate to enhanced patient and medication safety, improved coordination in medication management with integrated medication reviews.

The amount of informal caregiving has increased in Finland, with a growing emphasis on the older adults. Although the medication management process in informal caregiving has been studied and is known to have significant risks, research data focusing on the older adults is still limited. The aim of this study was to describe the medication management process of informal carers and care recipients of at least 65 years old. The aim was to identify medication errors and medication risks in the medication management process and to find out how the caregivers manage them. In addition, the study examined the informal carers and care recipients own development proposals to improve medication management process. A total of 21 volunteer informal carers and care recipients living in the Helsinki metropolitan area were recruited to this study. The study was conducted as a qualitative interview survey in the homes of the participants. The interviews were a combination of semi-structured interviews and narrative approach. The material to this study was collected during spring and summer 2018. The study was analysed with abductive content analysis combining both deductive and inductive approach. The aim was to find repetitive elements by encoding and grouping expressions. The results of this study were compared with previous theory and the results were supplemented with a picture of the medication management process and a fishbone diagram was drawn from the risk factors and contributing factors of the medication management process. The families had medication errors in all stages of the medication management process. The most frequent medication errors were found in counselling, medication administration and in medication treatment monitoring. As a contributing factor, the healthcare professionals’ haste and the responsibility of the caregiver recurred in the background of the medication errors. Family caregivers and care recipients wish to have more counselling, more monitoring of medication and better interaction with health care. Carers often felt left alone to take care of another person's medications and felt they lack support from healthcare. By facilitating access to a physician, improving the availability of a physician, increasing the amount of counseling and support provided by healthcare, including pharmacies, could the safety of medication management at home be improved.

About 10 % of the patients experience an adverse event during their treatment. About 1 % of the adverse events are serious. Extrapolated from international evidence adverse events cause death of 700 - 1700 patients annually in Finland. Medication errors are the most common single preventable cause of adverse events. According to several studies about half of the adverse events and medication errors are preventable. Therefore medication safety is a central part of the Finnish Patient Safety Strategy. One of the medication safety tools in Finland is unit-based pharmacotherapy plan for which the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health gives instructions in the Safe Pharmacotherapy guide. All social and healthcare units should develop a pharmacotherapy plan which describes the medication processes in the unit. The purpose is to harmonise the principles for the provision of pharmacotherapy, to clarify the division of responsibilities related to its provision, and to define the minimum requirements that must be complied. The aim of the study was to explore how the pharmacotherapy plans were made and to evaluate their implementation and benefits in hospitals, health centres and social care units for the elderly. Pharmacotherapy plans are studied as part of the Finnish Patient Safety Strategy, focusing on medication safety. Head nurses were chosen as target group. The data was collected by phone interviews. Forty (8 %) interviews were received from a random sample that was taken from a register of head nurses held by Tehy ry. The interview was semi-structured theme interview and the data was analysed using content analysis. Most of the studied units (n= 24, 60 %) had started to formulate the pharmacotherapy plan in 2007, soon after the Safe Pharmacotherapy guide was published. Pharmacotherapy plans were drawn up on organisation and/or unit level. There was a lot of variety in the working groups' sizes and professionals taking part in them. More instructions would have been needed. The most common way (n=20, 50 %) to induct the pharmacotherapy plan to the staff was to introduce it at the unit meeting. Most commonly mentioned changes to the operations in the units were related to error reporting (n=15, 38 %), certification procedures for distribution and administration of medicines (n=9, 23 %) and task allocation (n=8, 20 %). There were several benefits of the pharmacotherapy plan of which most common were starting or developing error reporting (n=19, 48 %), clarification and better availability of instructions (n=18, 45 %), better induction of new staff members and substitutes (n=16, 40 %) and standardization of procedures (n=10, 25 %). Allocation of tasks and responsibilities was considered a challenge in developing and using the pharmacotherapy plan. Limited resources caused difficulties in implementing and using the pharmacotherapy plan. The staffs' medication education was kept more up-to date after introduction of the pharmacotherapy plan but the education was also challenging for the units. Pharmacotherapy plans made the units develop their procedures and increased understanding of medication safety. All in all the plans have worked well as part of the Patient Safety Strategy. However the systematic development of the pharmacotherapy and the use of pharmacotherapy plans in social and healthcare units requires more effort.

Iäkkäiden määrän lisääntyminen aiheuttaa tarpeen kehittää ja tutkia uusia lääkkeitä sekä lääkemuotoja entistä enemmän. Iän tuomat fysiologiset muutokset sekä useat sairaudet voivat aiheuttaa ongelmia perinteisten lääkkeiden annostelussa. Annosteluongelmien ratkaiseminen lääkemuodon muokkaamisella voi kuitenkin aiheuttaa riskin lääkitysturvallisuudelle. Tämän pro gradu -tutkielman tarkoituksena oli tutkia iäkkäitä potilaita hoitavien lääkäreiden kohtaamia lääkemuotoihin liittyviä ongelmia. Tutkimuksen avulla pyrittiin selvittämään, kohtaavatko lääkärit hoitotyössä lääkemuotojen aiheuttamia ongelmia, ja minkälaisia ongelmia lääkärit kohtaavat. Lisäksi lääkäreiden haastatteluissa esiinnousseita teemoja verrattiin hoitajien kolmen päivän seurantajakson aikana verkkokyselylomakkeelle kirjaamiin lääkemuotoihin liittyviin käytännön ongelmiin, joita käytännön hoitotyössä palveluasumisen yksiköissä ilmeni aiemmin toteutetussa tutkimuksessa. Tutkimuksessa haastateltiin viittä lääkäriä, joilla oli kokemusta iäkkäiden lääkehoidosta. Lääkärit etsittiin tutkimukseen mukaan sosiaalisen median kautta hakuilmoituksella. Puolistrukturoidut haastattelut nauhoitettiin ja litteroinnin jälkeen niiden analysoinnissa käytettiin aineistolähtöistä sisällönanalyysiä. Tabletteihin liittyviksi ongelmiksi lääkärit mainitsivat niiden ison koon ja pintaominaisuudet, joiden vuoksi niiden nieleminen vaikeutuu. Muita ongelmia olivat tablettien tunnistettavuus, jakouurteen puute sekä sopivien vahvuuksien puute, vaikkakin yleisesti lääkäreiden mielestä eri vahvuuksia on tarpeeksi markkinoilla. Kapseleiden ongelmiksi lääkärit mainitsivat myös ison koon sekä epäselvyyden siitä, saako kapselia avata vai ei. Oraaliliuosten ongelmiksi koettiin paha maku, liian laimeat vahvuudet, lasku- ja mittaamisvirheen riski sekä sekaantumisen vaara. Lääkelaastarit jakoivat mielipiteitä, mutta niiden ongelmiksi lueteltiin muun muassa iho-oireet ja laastarin irtoaminen. Yleisesti lääkärit eivät olleet tablettien murskaamisen kannalla, mutta jokainen haastatelluista lääkäreistä totesi murskaamisen olevan joissakin tilanteissa ainoa vaihtoehto. Lisäksi lääkärit luettelivat useita lääkemuotoihin liittymättömiä ongelmia, jotka liittyivät sekä potilaaseen mutta myös terveydenhuoltojärjestelmään. Jotta lääkemuotoihin liittyviä ongelmia voitaisiin vähentää, tulisi iäkkäiden kohdalla aina arvioida lääkehoito säännöllisesti. Arvioinnin perusteella iäkkäälle voitaisiin valita hänelle parhaiten sopivat lääkemuodot ja huolehtia siitä, ettei tarpeettomia valmisteita ole käytössä. Lääketeollisuuden ja lääkeviranomaisten vastuulla on edistää lääkkeiden kehitystä ja uusien innovaatioiden tuomista markkinoille. Käytännössä lääketeollisuus voi helpottaa terveydenhuollon ammattilaisten työtä tuottamalla selkeitä lääkeinformaatiotekstejä, joilla voisi esimerkiksi helpottaa murskaamispäätöksen tekemistä.

A large part of patient safety incidents in health care is related to medicines and medication treatment. Medication safety is an important part of patient safety. In particular, transitions of care endangers continuity of care and patient safety. A poor flow of information between health care units increases a risk of medication errors. An accurate and up-to-date medication list can improve transfer of correct medical information with the patient. In addition to the medication list other organization-level defences are important to patient and medication safety. This study is part of a larger regional development project concerning reformation of service delivery in health and social care. One of the purposes of the project is to integrate health and social services of municipalities in central Uusimaa (Hyvinkää, Mäntsälä, Pornainen, Järvenpää, Nurmijärvi and Tuusula). The aim of this study was to investigate what kinds of medication lists are available in these municipalities and to design a medication list maintained by the patient which is regionally shared. The second aim of the study was to identify defences used by the municipal healthcare systems and to develop a medication management process model for the municipalities. The material consisted of medication lists from the municipalities participating in the study. Twelve (12) lists were selected for analysis. The medication list of Lääkekortti.fi was also included in the analysis (N=13). Data of the defences was collected by a questionnaire. In Hyvinkää the material was collected from primary health care and Hyvinkää hospital. Both the medication list and the defence data were systematically reviewed and collected in a Microsoft Excel table. The regional medication list for patients was developed based on the medication list data and the existing literature. The process model for medical treatment was developed based on the defence data. Almost every medication list contained space for personal data (n=11) and basic medication information, such as the name of the drug (n=12), strength (n=12) and dosage (n=13). Regular medication was usually separated from as-needed medication (n=8). Only two of the lists had a column for periodic medication. There were only two lists with columns for over-the-counter medicines and herbal products. Less than half of the lists (n=5) had space for indication. According to the survey, most of the defences listed in the questionnaire were used in all or almost all municipalities. According to the responses, medication lists, for example, are regularly reviewed. Some gaps in defences also emerged. Only in two municipalities high-alert medications were identified. Also only in two municipalities attention was paid to the storage of look-alike medicines. Written instructions for managing medication errors was available only in two municipalities. There are many different medication lists available in health care. A regionally shared medication list maintained by the patient can improve the transfer of the up-to-date medical information with the patient. The list must be comprehensive and easy to use. Both the patient and the healthcare professionals should be responsible for maintaining the accurate medication list. Most of the defences asked in the questionnaire have been taken into account in pharmacotherapy plans. In practice, however, the implementation of defences is unclear. For example patients' medication lists often contain errors even though lists should be reviewed regularly. There should be exact instructions as well as clearly defined roles and responsibilities for medication reconciliation. More attention should also be paid to the use of high-alert and look-alike medicines. Since errors occur despite the defenses, every health care unit should have written instructions in case of medication errors.

Tausta: Lääkehoitoon liittyvät haittatapahtumat aiheuttavat merkittävää inhimillistä kärsimystä ja taloudellista taakkaa yhteiskunnalle. Lääkitykseen liittyviä haittatapahtumia voidaan ehkäistä tunnistamalla ja puuttumalla lääkitysriskejä aiheuttaviin tekijöihin. Tavoitteet: Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli tutkia lääkitysriskien hallintakeinoja lääkkeen toimittamisen yhteydessä suomalaisissa avohuollon apteekeissa. Tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten apteekeissa tunnistetaan ja puututaan asiakkaan lääkehoitoon liittyviin ongelmiin ja millaista lääkitysriskien hallintaan liittyvää osaamista ja lisäkoulutustarvetta apteekeissa työskentelevillä farmaseuteilla ja proviisoreilla on. Aineisto ja menetelmät: Tutkimus oli valtakunnallinen poikkileikkaustutkimus, jonka aineisto kerättiin syksyllä 2022 sähköisellä kyselyllä. Alkuperäinen kyselylomake luotiin vuonna 2015 kirjallisuuden ja järjestelmälähtöisen riskien hallinnan teorian pohjalta ja päivitettiin tätä tutkimusta varten. Tulokset: Kyselyyn vastasi 192 apteekkia (n=610). Apteekeissa tunnistettiin ja puututtiin lääkehoito-ongelmiin, mutta toimintatavat olivat harvoin systemaattisia. Yleisin puuttumistapa oli keskustelu asiakkaan kanssa ja kehotus ottaa yhteyttä lääkäriin, näin toimi 78 % apteekeista tilanteessa, joissa asiakkaan lääkitys ei toiminut toivotulla tavalla. Suurimmalla osalla apteekeista ei ollut muun terveydenhuollon kanssa yhteisesti sovittuja toimintatapoja lääkehoito-ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi. Myös apteekin sisäiset toimintaohjeet olivat puutteellisia Johtopäätökset: Apteekkien ja muun terveydenhuollon välinen nopea viestintäkanava ja yhteisesti sovitut toimintatavat voisivat parantaa apteekkien mahdollisuuksia puuttua lääkehoito-ongelmiin. Apteekkien rooli lääkitysriskien hallinnassa tulee määritellä tarkemmin. Apteekkien ja muun terveydenhuollon välisessä yhteistyössä on paljon hyödyntämätöntä potentiaalia.

According to international studies, medication records are often incomplete in hospitals' patient information system. Medication reconciliation is an effective method to prevent medication errors and improve medication safety. A medication review is a useful tool in the assessment of drug-related problems (DRPs). DRPs can cause severe patient harm and even cause death. Approximately one third of Finnish people are diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. About 16 000 patients receive cancer treatments in the Helsinki University Central Hospital Cancer Centre (HUCHCC). There are no clinical pharmacy services in the division of the solid tumors of HUCHCC. Internationally clinical pharmacy services in oncology are patient oriented and often include medication reconciliations and reviews. The clinical pharmacy services have increased patient safety also in the oncological specialty. The aim of this study was to find out the accuracy of the medication charts and identify the DRPs among 70-80-year-old patients with 6 or more medicines in uro-oncological outpatient clinic of HUCHCC. Accuracy of the medication charts was assessed by pharmacist-led medication reconciliation with patient interview. Information concerning patient's medication was also searched from the national electronical prescription centre and from the records of previous hospital visits. DRPs, such as drug-drug interactions, adverse drug reactions and overlapping medications, were identified with the pharmacist-led medication review. Special attention was paid to renal insuffiency, high-alert medications and potentially inappropriate medication for patients over 75 years old. Pharmacist discussed the DRPs with the oncology specialist. The theoretical framework of this study was the theory of human error, where patient safety hazards can be prevented by using safety defences such as medication reconciliation and medication review. Altogether 30 patients with urological cancer were included in this study. On average, they were 74.3 years old and used 12.4 medications. On average, there were 6.8 discrepancies per patient in the hospital medication chart. Only one patient had the accurate medication chart. The discrepancies were most commonly related to paracetamol (n = 10), vitamin-D (n = 9) and the combination of calcium and vitamin-D (n = 8). The most common discrepancies of high-alert medications were related to enoxaparin (n=6) and oxycodone (n=6). Of the potentially inappropriate medications for over 75 years old, the most common discrepancies were related magnesium (n=8) and metoclopramide (n=5). In the medication review process, 4 acute and 44 non-acute DRPs were identified with 22 patients (2,2 per patient). 60 % of these were regarded clinically relevant and lead to actions by the oncology specialist. Reconsidering the need or efficacy of the medication was recommended 19 times and inappropriate dose or medication with renal insufficiency were identified six times in medication reviews. DRPs were usually related to non-oncological medications such as pantoprazol (n=8), the combination of calcium and vitamin-D (n=4) ja bisoprolol (n=3). The medication reconciliation process should be developed in the urology-oncology outpatient clinic. Multiprofessional medication review can be used to detect and resolve DRPs of patients with urological cancer. The results of this study can be exploited when clinical pharmacy services will be created and developed in HUCHCC.