Development of a model of medication review for use in clinical practice: Bristol medication review model

Use of the BRANT-MERQS scoring table for the quality assessment of type 3 medication review in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

A type 3 medication review (MR3) is a patient-centred medication service primarily provided by pharmacists and is presently employed routinely in several countries. In this process, pharmacists interview patients and collaborate with the treating physician to optimize the patient's pharmacotherapy, taking into account the patient's medication history and other medical data including laboratory values. The need to maintain the quality of such interventions during and after their initial implementation cannot be overstated.

Aim

The objective of this study was to refine and assess a scoring table to evaluate the quality of MR3 conducted in Belgian community pharmacies.

Methods

The comprehensive quality of MR3s was assessed by scoring its various components using a previously developed scoring table, called BRANT-MERQS, Brussels Antwerp Medication Review Quality Score. MR3s were analysed from an implementation study with patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA, subproject 1) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM, subproject 2). Additional information was obtained during a telephone call with a subset of participating pharmacists of subproject 1 who finalized their first MR3.

Results

In subproject 1, a total of 21 MR3s of patients with RA were examined. The assessment showed favourable scores for elements such as a well-organized medication schedule, treatment adherence, and the elaboration of specific interventions. However, certain other quality criteria posed challenges in the evaluation, for example, the use of simple and understandable language. Pharmacists faced time constraints, and elderly general practitioners (GPs) displayed limited enthusiasm, which were notable barriers observed for this subproject. In the context of subproject 2 that investigated 41 MR3s in patients with T2DM, the quality criteria of interaction between pharmacist and GP, and used sources and tools received high scores. However, there was still room for improvement, especially in areas such as accurate dosing, handling kidney function, QT prolongation, correctly associating laboratory values with relevant drugs and medical conditions, and optimisation of medication schedules for patients.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the feasibility of MR3 quality assessment through a scoring system. However, it also unveiled the tool's current imperfections and highlighted the ongoing need for refinement, something expected of a new service in an implementation phase.

Exploring the heterogeneity in community pharmacist-led medication review studies - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Findings on the effectiveness of medication reviews led by community pharmacists (CPs) are often inconclusive. It has been hypothesized that studies are not sufficiently standardized, and thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions.

OBJECTIVE(S)

To examine differences in the way CP-led medication review studies are set up. This was accomplished by investigating (1) patient selection criteria, (2) components of the medication review interventions, (3) types of outcomes, and (4) measurement instruments used.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials of CP-led medication reviews was carried out in PubMed and Cochrane Library. Information on patient selection, intervention components, and outcome measurements was extracted, and frequencies were analyzed. Where possible, outcomes were mapped to the Core Outcome Set (COS) for medication review studies. Finally, a network analysis was conducted to explore the influence of individual factors on outcome effects.

RESULTS

In total, 30 articles (26 studies) were included. Most articles had a drug class-specific or disease-specific patient selection criterion (n = 19). Half of the articles included patients aged ≥60 years (n = 15), and in 40% (n = 12/30) patients taking 4 drugs or more. In 24 of 30 articles, a medication review was comprised with additional interventions, such as distribution of educational material and training or follow-up visits. About 40 different outcomes were extracted. Within specific outcomes, the measurement instruments varied, and COS was rarely represented.

CONCLUSION

The revealed differences in patient selection, intervention delivery, and outcome assessment highlight the need for more standardization in research on CP-led medication reviews. While intervention delivery should be more precisely described to capture potential differences between interventions, outcome assessment should be standardized in terms of outcome selection by application of the COS, and with regard to the selected core outcome measurement instruments to enable comparison of the results.

Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as 'a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient's total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems'. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes.

AIM

To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were "medication review", "pharmacist", "randomised controlled trial" and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews' components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients' ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173907.

Managing polypharmacy through medication review tools - pros and cons

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a common occurrence in elderly patients, resulting in increased adverse drug reactions, nonadherence, and increased healthcare costs. Medication review and deprescribing are the primary strategies described in the literature for dealing with problematic polypharmacy. To effectively carry out the medication review, various tools have been developed. These tools can support medication review in a variety of ways. Some tools include a list of medications requiring detailed attention, while others guide medical professionals with principles and algorithms for reviewing and prescribing medicines. A third category of tools focuses on tracking and identifying symptoms that may be due to drug-related problems.

Perspectives on 3D printed personalized medicines for pediatrics

In recent years, the rapid advancement of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has yielded distinct benefits across various sectors, including pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry has particularly experienced advantages from the utilization of 3D-printed medications, which have invigorated the development of tailored drug formulations. The approval of 3D-printed drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has significantly propelled personalized drug delivery. Additionally, 3D printing technology can accommodate the precise requirements of pediatric drug dosages and the complexities of multiple drug combinations. This review specifically concentrates on the application of 3D printing technology in pediatric preparations, encompassing a broad spectrum of uses and refined pediatric formulations. It compiles and evaluates the fundamental principles associated with the application of 3D printing technology in pediatric preparations, including its merits and demerits, and anticipates its future progression. The objective is to furnish theoretical underpinning for 3D printing technology to facilitate personalized drug delivery in pediatrics and to advocate for its implementation in clinical settings.

Pharmacist-Led Interventions for Medication Adherence in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are routinely prescribed complex medication regimes. Medication reconciliation, medicine reviews, patient counselling and disease state and medication education are all key pharmacist-led interventions, which can improve medication adherence in patients with CKD.

AIM

To characterize peer reviewed literature on the role of pharmacists in supporting medication adherence of patients with chronic kidney disease and highlight the impact they might have in the health outcomes for patients.

METHOD

This review was performed in accordance with the Scoping Review Framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Guide. Four electronic databases were searched (Medline (Ovid), Emcare, Scopus and Web of Science) for all relevant literature published up until November 2022. A total of 32 studies were reviewed against an exclusion and inclusion criteria, with findings from each study categorized into barriers, interventions, perceptions, financial implications and outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight eligible studies were identified, where pharmacists' interventions including medication reconciliation, medicine reviews, patient counselling and disease state and medication education, were all reported to have a positive effect on medication adherence. Although pharmacy services in chronic kidney disease were acceptable to patients and pharmacists, these services were under-utilized and limited by logistical constraints, including staffing shortages and time limitations. Patient education supplemented with education tools describing disease states and medications was reported to increase patient adherence to medication regimes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-led interventions play an integral role in improving medication adherence in patients with chronic kidney disease, with their inclusion in renal care settings having the potential to improve outcomes for patients.

Key elements in the quality assessment of a type 3 medication review

Background: Medication reviews are a structured evaluation of a patient's pharmacotherapy with the aim of optimizing medicines use and improving health outcomes. This entails detecting drug related problems and recommending interventions. A high level of quality is essential for the successful implementation of this service in community pharmacies but currently there is no instrument or tool to assess that overall quality. Aim: This study investigated the development of quality criteria of type 3 medication reviews (MR3s). Methods: After surveying the literature, an electronic questionnaire was developed to gather information about quality criteria for MR3. This survey, in Dutch, was distributed electronically. Four groups were queried: 1) pharmacists, mainly working in the Netherlands, involved in practice research and contacted through the PRISMA (Practice Research In Collaboration With Pharmacists) foundation, 2) Belgian pharmacy academics and pharmacists active in professional associations (APA), 3) Belgian pharmacists trained in medication review (MR) by the Royal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA) and 4) Belgian pharmacy students. The survey included 57 criteria, divided into eight domains, which were ranked according to their importance by the participants. The results were analyzed statistically using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: The survey was completed by 95 participants, including 42 PRISMA pharmacists, 19 APA pharmacists, 18 KAVA pharmacists and 16 pharmacy students. Opinions from participants from the different groups overlapped significantly. The use of simple and understandable language in the conversation with the patient was considered essential by the majority. Discussing the usefulness and purpose of a MR3 with the patient was also rated highly by all groups. Differences of opinion were present in aspects about laboratory values, the use of specific tools, and reporting to and consultation with the treating physician. The participants themselves formulated a limited number of additional assessment criteria. Conclusion: There was widespread agreement on the hierarchy of the quality assessment criteria for MR3s. Minor differences were related to the experience of the participants. With these results and a small number of suggested extra criteria, a quality assessment instrument for MR3 can be created.