Priority Setting and Influential Factors on Acceptance of Pharmaceutical Recommendations in Collaborative Medication Reviews in an Ambulatory Care Setting - Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (WestGem-Study)

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.

Harmonizing the definition of medication reviews for their collaborative implementation and documentation in electronic patient records: A Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Medication review practices have evolved internationally in a direction in which not only physicians but also other healthcare professionals conduct medication reviews according to agreed practices. Collaborative practices have increasingly highlighted the need for electronic joint platforms where information on medication regimens and their implementation can be documented, kept updated, and shared.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to harmonize the definition of medication reviews and create a unified conceptual basis for their collaborative implementation and documentation in electronic patient records (definition appellation: collaborative medication review).

METHODS

The study was conducted using the Delphi consensus survey with three interprofessional expert panel rounds in September-December 2020. The consensus rate was set at 80%. Experts assessed the proposed definition of collaborative medication review based on an international and national inventory of medication review definitions. The expert panel (n = 41) involved 12 physicians, 13 pharmacists, 10 nurses, and six information management professionals. The range of response rates for the rounds was 63-88%.

RESULTS

The experts commented on which of the pre-selected items (n = 75) characterizing medication reviews should be included in the definition of collaborative medication review. The items were divided into the following five themes and 51 of them reached consensus: 1) Actions included in the collaborative medication review (n = 24/24), 2) Settings where the review should be conducted (n = 5/5), 3) Situations where the review should be considered as needed and carried out (n = 10/11), 4) Prioritization of top five benefits to be achieved by the review and 5) Prioritization of top five patient groups to whom the review should be targeted.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong interprofessional consensus was reached on the definition of collaborative medication review. The most challenging was to identify individual patient groups benefiting from the review.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

BC Clinical impact of medication reviews with follow-up in cardiovascular older patients in primary care: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the primary cause of death in Chile. Pharmacist-led medication review with follow-up (MRF) has improved CVD risk factors control in Europe and North America. However, their healthcare systems differ from Chile's, precluding generalizability. This trial aimed to determine the effect of MRF on CVD risk factor control among older patients with polypharmacy attending public primary care centres in Chile.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 24 centres. Patients older than 65 years with moderate-to-high CVD risk, five or more medications, hypertension, type 2 diabetes or dyslipidaemia, received MRF in addition to usual care or usual care alone for 12 months. Primary outcome measures were clinical goal achievement for hypertension, type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia, as well as medication adherence, medication number and CVD risk score. Adjusted generalized estimating equations were used, with odds ratios (ORs) for binary measures and mean differences for continuous measures.

RESULTS

In total, 324 patients from 12 centres (174 MRF group, 150 usual care group, six centres each) received four pharmacist visits. Significant improvements were found for goal achievement in hypertension (OR 4.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.54 to 7.51, P = .001), LDL cholesterol (OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 6.33, P = .001), type 2 diabetes (OR 6.97, 95% CI 3.69 to 13.2, P = .001), medication adherence (OR 6.60, 95% CI 1.36 to 31.9, P = .022), medications number (-0.86, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.58, P < .001) and CVD risk score (-2.27, 95% CI -2.84 to -1.69, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led medication review with follow-up improved cardiovascular disease risk factor control and medication adherence. This study supports pharmacists' inclusion in primary care teams.

Developing Medication Review Competency in Undergraduate Pharmacy Training: A Self-Assessment by Third-Year Students

Pharmacists are increasingly involved in medication history taking, medication reconciliation, and review in their daily practice. The objectives of this study were to investigate third-year pharmacy students' self-assessed competency in medication reviews and gather their feedback for further development of medication review training in their curriculum. The study was conducted as a self-assessment of third-year pharmacy students at the completion of their second three-month internship period in a community pharmacy in 2017-2018. The students were assigned to review medications of a real patient under the supervision of a medication review accredited pharmacist during their internship. The self-assessment was carried out via an e-form, which was created for this study. Recently established national medication review competence recommendations for pharmacists were used as a reference. Students (n = 95, participation rate: 93%) self-assessed their competency as good or very good in 91% (n = 28) of the competency areas listed in the self-assessment. The highest proportion of competencies that were self-assessed as good or very good included using medication risk management databases and evaluating the clinical importance of the information (97%, n = 92). The lowest proportion of competencies was found in applying clinical information from the key laboratory tests to patient care and knowing which laboratory tests are most important to monitor in each condition and medication (36%, n = 34). The students suggested that their pharmacy education should contain more medication review assignments as group work and that an elective course on medication reviews should be compulsory for all pharmacy students.

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

Implementing Comprehensive Medication Management (CMM) services uncovered the importance of the totality of the patient's perspective in this process. The holistic approach takes into account the physical, mental and emotional well-being of individuals, as well as their socioeconomic circumstances. The aim of this study was to characterize the scientific evidence associated with CMM services that included this holistic approach. A scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O'Malley's method. Searches were performed in Google Scholar for papers published between 2010 and 2020 in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Study design, health contexts, sample of patients, results obtained, barriers and facilitators, and the integration of a holistic approach were determined. Two hundred and eighteen papers were evaluated, most of which focused on the implementation of this service through prospective observational studies. A minority of studies reported on a holistic approach, a smaller number examined the effect of social determinants of health, the patient's medication experiences and the pharmacotherapy outcomes from the patient's perspective. Despite the progress achieved, most of the referents do not yet reflect a broader view of the patient's life situation and its relationship to pharmacotherapy and the ways in which the pharmacist implements holistic elements to solve or prevent drug-related problems.

Decision support software-guided medication reviews in elderly patients with polypharmacy: a prospective analysis of routine data from community pharmacies (OPtiMed study protocol)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist-led medication reviews are considered a valuable measure to address risks of polypharmacy. The software Medinspector^® is used in community pharmacies to assist the performance of this complex service by structuring the medication review process and supporting pharmacists in their decision-making with targeted clinical knowledge. Key feature is a computerized risk assessment of both the initial and adjusted medication regimen of a patient in multiple domains, thus aiming to support the identification and solving of drug-related problems. This study will examine the effects of medication reviews performed with the clinical decision support system in daily routine practice on medication-related and patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with polypharmacy.

METHODS

A prospective, before-after observational study is conducted in German community pharmacies aiming to include 148 patients aged 65 or older, who chronically use five or more active pharmaceutical substances with systemic effects and utilize the software-supported medication review service. The study is based on routine documentation within the software over the course of the medication review, including a patient's baseline medication, the medication proposed by pharmacists, and the final medication regimen. A software-implemented questionnaire comprising self-developed and literature-derived instruments is used to collect patient-reported outcome data at baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome is the appropriateness of medication measured with an adapted version of the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Secondary medication-related outcomes are medication underuse, exposition towards anticholinergic/sedative drugs, number of drugs in long-term use and the implementation of pharmacist-proposed medication adjustments by the physicians. Secondary patient-reported outcomes are symptom burden, medication-related quality of life, adherence, fulfillment of medication review-related goals, and perception of the service.

DISCUSSION

With the recently introduced remuneration of community pharmacist-led MR in Germany, the demand for digital tools supporting the MR process is assumed to rise. The OPtiMed-study is expected to create evidence on the effects of a novel tool on patient care in a vulnerable patient population. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00027410. Registered 22 December 2021, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00027410 . Also available on the WHO meta-registry: https://trialsearch.who.int/?TrialID=DRKS00027410.

Trampisch H, Timmesfeld N, Thürmann P, Hackmann E, Barkhausen T, Junius-Walker U, Wilm S. Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

Medications with an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in the elderly, and for which there are safer alternatives, are designated as potentially inappropriate medications (PIM). The RIME trial (Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly) was based on PRISCUS, a list of PIM that was developed in 2010 for the German pharmaceuticals market. In this trial, it was studied whether special training and the PRISCUS card could lessen PIM and undesired drug-drug interactions (DDI) among elderly patients in primary care.

METHODS

A three-armed, cluster-randomized, controlled trial was carried out in two regions of Germany. 137 primary care practices were randomized in equal numbers to one of two intervention groups-in which either the primary care physicians alone or the entire practice team received special training-or to a control group with general instructions about medication. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with at least one PIM or DDI (PIM/DDI) per practice. The primary hypothesis was that at 1 year this endpoint would be more effectively lowered in the intervention groups compared to the control group.

RESULTS

Among 1138 patients regularly taking more than five drugs, 453 (39.8%) had at least one PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial. The percent - ages of PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial and 1 year later were 43.0% and 41.3% in the intervention groups and 37.0% and 37.6% in the control group. The estimated intervention effect of any intervention (69 practices) versus control (68 practices) was 2.3% (p = 0.36), while that of team training (35 practices) versus physician training (34 practices) was 4.3% (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

The interventions in the RIME trial did not significantly lower the percentage of patients with PIM or DDI.

Developing and piloting a self-assessment tool for medication review competence of practicing pharmacists based on nationally set competence criteria

BACKGROUND

New competence requirements have emerged for pharmacists as a result of changing societal needs towards more patient-centred practices. Today, medication review competence can be considered as basic pharmaceutical competence. Medication review specific competence criteria and tools for self-assessing the competence are essential in building competences and a shared understanding of medication reviews as a collaborative practice. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a self-assessment tool for medication review competence among practicing pharmacists in Finland.

METHODS

The development of the self-assessment tool was based on the national medication review competence criteria for pharmacists established in Finland in 2017 and piloting the tool among practicing pharmacists in a national online survey in October 2018. The pharmacists self-assessed their medication review competence with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for "very poor/not at all" to 5 for "very good".

RESULTS

The internal consistency of the self-assessment tool was high as the range of the competence areas' Cronbach's alpha was 0.953-0.973. The competence areas consisted of prescription review competence (20 items, Cronbach's alpha 0.953), additional statements for medication review competence (11 additional items, Cronbach's alpha 0.963) and medication review as a whole, including both the statements of prescription review and medication review competence (31 items, Cronbach's alpha 0.973). Competence items closely related to routine dispensing were most commonly self-estimated to be mastered by the practicing pharmacists who responded (n = 344), while the more clinical and patient-centred competence items had the lowest self-estimates. This indicates that the self-assessment tool works logically and differentiates pharmacists according to competence. The self-assessed medication review competence was at a very good or good level among more than half (55%) of the respondents (n = 344).

CONCLUSION

A self-assessment tool for medication review competence was developed and validated. The piloted self-assessment tool can be used for regular evaluation of practicing pharmacists' medication review competence which is becoming an increasingly important basis for their contribution to patient care and society.

Pharmacist-led intervention on the reduction of inappropriate medication use in patients with heart failure: A systematic review of randomized trials and non-randomized intervention studies

BACKGROUND

Polipharmacy has been identified as a contributing factor to the high hospital readmission rates of heart failure (HF) patients. Nevertheless, there limited evidence on pharmacist-led intervention on the reduction of inappropriate medication use in patients.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence resulting from interventions, led by pharmacists (alone or as part of a professional team), aimed at reducing inappropriate medications in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Scopus until June 2020. We reviewed both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized intervention studies.The quality of evidence was assessed in accordance with the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 4367 records screening, 9 studies were included in the analysis. In 4 (44.4%) studies, the intervention was carried out by a pharmacist working together with a physician; in 4 (44.4%) the intervention was carried out by a pharmacist alone, and in 1 study, the pharmacist collaborated with a nurse. Only 5 (55.5%) studies described the utilization of guidelines or recommendations to carry out the deprescription, and 3 of these showed improved clinical outcomes in the interventional group compared to the control group. The other studies (4, 44.4%) did not follow a specific guideline or recommendation to evaluate the appropriateness of medication, and none of them showed statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between interventional and control groups.

CONCLUSION

Only those studies where pharmacists evaluated the appropriateness of treatment to specific HF guidelines showed significant differences in patients' clinical outcomes. The development and validation of a specific tool to evaluate medication appropriateness in patients with HF, could contribute to the improvement of patient health.

Improving medication appropriateness in nursing homes via structured interprofessional medication-review supported by health information technology: a non-randomized controlled study

Background

In nursing home residents (NHRs), polypharmacy is widespread, accompanied by elevated risks of medication related complications. Managing medication in NHRs is a priority, but prone to several challenges, including interprofessional cooperation. Against this background, we implemented and tested an interprofessional intervention aimed to improve medication appropriateness for NHRs.

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study (SiMbA; “Sicherheit der Medikamentherapie bei AltenheimbewohnerInnen”, Safety of medication therapy in NHRs) was conducted in six nursing homes in Austria (2016–2018). Educational training, introduction of tailored health information technology (HIT) and a therapy check process were combined in an intervention aimed at healthcare professionals. Medication appropriateness was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Data was collected before (t0), during (t1, month 12) and after (t2, month 18) intervention via self-administered assessments and electronic health records.

Results

We included 6 NHs, 17 GPs (52.94% female) and 240 NHRs (68.75% female; mean age 85.0). Data of 159 NHRs could be included in the analysis. Mean MAI-change was − 3.35 (IG) vs. − 1.45 (CG). In the subgroup of NHRs with mean MAI ≥23, MAI-change was − 10.31 (IG) vs. −3.52 (CG). The intervention was a significant predictor of improvement in MAI when controlled for in a multivariable regression model.

Conclusions

Improvement of medication appropriateness was clearest in residents with inappropriate baseline MAI-scores. This improvement was independent of variances in certain covariates between the intervention and the control group. We conclude that our intervention is a feasible approach to improve NHRs’ medication appropriateness.

Trial registration

DRKS Data Management, ID: DRKS00012246. Registered 16.05.2017 – Retrospectively registered.

Community pharmacists' evolving role in Canadian primary health care: a vision of harmonization in a patchwork system

Canada's universal public health care system provides physician, diagnostic, and hospital services at no cost to all Canadians, accounting for approximately 70% of the 264 billion CAD spent in health expenditure yearly. Pharmacy-related services, including prescription drugs, however, are not universally publicly insured. Although this system underpins the Canadian identity, primary health care reform has long been desired by Canadians wanting better access to high quality, effective, patient-centred, and safe primary care services. A nationally coordinated approach to remodel the primary health care system was incited at the turn of the 21st century yet, twenty years later, evidence of widespread meaningful improvement remains underwhelming. As a provincial/territorial responsibility, the organization and provision of primary care remains discordant across the country. Canadian pharmacists are, now more than ever, poised and primed to provide care integrated with the rest of the primary health care system. However, the self-regulation of the profession of pharmacy is also a provincial/territorial mandate, making progress toward integration of pharmacists into the primary care system incongruent across jurisdictions. Among 11,000 pharmacies, Canada's 28,000 community pharmacists possess varying authority to prescribe, administer, and monitor drug therapies as an extension to their traditional dispensing role. Expanded professional services offered at most community pharmacies include medication reviews, minor/common ailment management, pharmacist prescribing for existing prescriptions, smoking cessation counselling, and administration of injectable drugs and vaccinations. Barriers to widely offering these services include uncertainties around remuneration, perceived skepticism from other providers about pharmacists' skills, and slow digital modernization including limited access by pharmacists to patient health records held by other professionals. Each province/territory enables pharmacists to offer these services under specific legislation, practice standards, and remuneration models unique to their jurisdiction. There is also a small, but growing, number of pharmacists across the country working within interdisciplinary primary care teams. To achieve meaningful, consistent, and seamless integration into the interdisciplinary model of Canadian primary health care reform, pharmacy advocacy groups across the country must coordinate and collaborate on a harmonized vision for innovation in primary care integration, and move toward implementing that vision with ongoing collaboration on primary health care initiatives, strategic plans, and policies. Canadians deserve to receive timely, equitable, and safe interdisciplinary care within a coordinated primary health care system, including from their pharmacy team.

Medication Review by Community Pharmacists for Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Routine Care: Results of the DIATHEM-Study

Most elderly patients with type 2 diabetes take multiple drugs. Earlier studies in other countries suggested that interdisciplinary medication reviews are beneficial for these patients regarding medication safety and therapy optimization. In Germany, medication reviews by community pharmacies are rarely performed, although it is a service stipulated in the “Apothekenbetriebsordnung” (rules governing the operation of pharmacies in Germany) since 2012. Therefore, the aim of the DIATHEM study (type 2 DIAbetes: optimizing THErapy by Medication review in community pharmacies) was to evaluate the impact of medication reviews from German community pharmacies under real-life conditions. Primary outcomes were: identification of drug related problems (DRPs) and to evaluate to what extent they could be solved by the medication review. Secondary outcomes were: evaluation of changes in the number of drugs and the interdisciplinary cooperation between pharmacists and physicians. In a single arm interventional study, 121 patients aged 65 or older with type 2 diabetes, taking at least five drugs for long-term treatment were provided with one medication review between February 2016 and April 2017. Physicians were not pre-informed about the review and neither patients nor physicians nor the 13 participating community pharmacies were reimbursed for their contributions to the study. For 121 patients, 586 DPRs were identified (4.84 DRPs per patient) of which 31.6% were related to the antidiabetics. Due to the medication review, 46.9% of these DRPs could be completely resolved, indicating a statistically significant decline from 4.84 DRPs to 2.57 DRPs per patient (p < 0.001). The average number of drugs was significantly reduced from 9.5 drugs (standard deviation, SD = 2.9) to 9.3 drugs (SD = 2.8) per patient (p < 0.001). The pharmacists received feedback for 76.7% of the intervention proposals sent to the physicians. In total 59.5% of the intervention proposals were accepted, of which 643 (85.3%) were accepted and fully implemented. In conclusion, the study shows that medication reviews performed by community pharmacists under routine care conditions reduced the frequency and number of DRPs, even though the pharmacies had to face obstacles such as lack of cooperation by the prescriber or lack of reimbursement.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Impact of training and structured medication review on medication appropriateness and patient-related outcomes in nursing homes: results from the interventional study InTherAKT

BACKGROUND

Uncoordinated interprofessional communication in nursing homes increases the risk of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use. This may lead to augmented frequency of adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. The aims of this study were (1) to improve interprofessional communication and medication safety using a combined intervention and thus, (2) to improve medication appropriateness and health-related outcomes of the included residents.

METHODS

The single-arm interventional study (2014-2017) was conducted in Muenster, Germany and involved healthcare professionals and residents of nursing homes. The intervention consisted of systematic education of participating healthcare professionals and of a structured interprofessional medication review which was performed via an online communication platform. The primary endpoint was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index MAI. Secondary endpoints were: cognitive performance, delirium, agitation, mobility, number of drugs, number of severe drug-drug interactions and appropriateness of analgesics. Outcomes were measured before, during and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inference-statistical methods.

RESULTS

Fourteen general practitioners, 11 pharmacists, 9 nursing homes and 120 residents (n = 83 at all testing times) participated. Overall MAI sum-score decreased significantly over time (mean reduction: -7.1, CI95% -11.4 - - 2.8; median = - 3.0; dCohen = 0.39), especially in cases with baseline sum-score ≥ 24 points (mean reduction: -17.4, CI95% -27.6 - - 7.2; median = - 15.0; dCohen = 0.86). MAI sum-score of analgesics also decreased (dCohen = 0.45). Mean number of severe drug-drug interactions rose slightly over time (dCohen = 0.17). The proportion of residents showing agitated behavior diminished from 83.9 to 67.8%. Remaining secondary outcomes were without substantial change.

CONCLUSION

Medication appropriateness increased particularly in residents with high baseline MAI sum-scores. Cognitive decline of participating residents was seemingly decelerated when compared with epidemiologic studies. A controlled trial is required to confirm these effects. Interprofessional interaction was structured and performance of medication reviews was facilitated as the online communication platform provided unlimited and consistent access to all relevant and updated information.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS Data Management, ID: DRKS00007900 , date of registration: 2015-09-02 (retrospectively registered i.e. 6 weeks after commencement of the first data collection).

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

Introduction

Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.

Aim

To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).

Conclusion

There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Development and evaluation of an algorithm-based tool for Medication Management in nursing homes: the AMBER study protocol

BACKGROUND

Residents of nursing homes are susceptible to risks from medication. Medication Reviews (MR) can increase clinical outcomes and the quality of medication therapy. Limited resources and barriers between healthcare practitioners are potential obstructions to performing MR in nursing homes. Focusing on frequent and relevant problems can support pharmacists in the provision of pharmaceutical care services. This study aims to develop and evaluate an algorithm-based tool that facilitates the provision of Medication Management in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is subdivided into three phases. In phase I, semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners and patients will be performed, and a mixed methods approach will be chosen. Qualitative content analysis and the rating of the aspects concerning the frequency and relevance of problems in the medication process in nursing homes will be performed. In phase II, a systematic review of the current literature on problems and interventions will be conducted. The findings will be narratively presented. The results of both phases will be combined to develop an algorithm for MRs. For further refinement of the aspects detected, a Delphi survey will be conducted. In conclusion, a tool for clinical practice will be created. In phase III, the tool will be tested on MRs in nursing homes. In addition, effectiveness, acceptance, feasibility and reproducibility will be assessed. The primary outcome of phase III will be the reduction of drug-related problems (DRPs), which will be detected using the tool. The secondary outcomes will be the proportion of DRPs, the acceptance of pharmaceutical recommendations and the expenditure of time using the tool and inter-rater reliability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study intervention is approved by the local Ethics Committee. The findings of the study will be presented at national and international scientific conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00010995.

Multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have discussed the benefits of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care. However, what remains unclear is how collaboration is undertaken in a multidisciplinary manner in concrete terms.

OBJECTIVE

To identify how multidisciplinary teams in primary care collaborate, in regards to the professionals involved in the teams and the collaborative activities that take place, and determine whether these characteristics and practices are present across disciplines and whether collaboration affects clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of past research, using the MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Four types of team composition were identified: specialized teams, highly multidisciplinary teams, doctor-nurse-pharmacist triad and physician-nurse centred teams. Four types of collaboration within teams were identified: co-located collaboration, non-hierarchical collaboration, collaboration through shared consultations and collaboration via referral and counter-referral. Two combinations were commonly repeated: non-hierarchical collaboration in highly multidisciplinary teams and co-located collaboration in specialist teams. Fifty-two per cent of articles reported positive results when comparing collaboration against the non-collaborative alternative, whereas 16% showed no difference and 32% did not present a comparison.

CONCLUSION

Overall, collaboration was found to be positive or neutral in every study that compared collaboration with a non-collaborative alternative. A collaboration typology based on objective measures was devised, in contrast to typologies that involve interviews, perception-based questionnaires and other subjective instruments.

Interprofessional Medication Management in Patients With Multiple Morbidities

BACKGROUND

Medication reviews and medication management are being used more and more around the world to improve medication safety. Both of these tools were originally conceived as pharmaceutical care activities and have recently been developed into interdisciplinary approaches. We studied the efficacy of interprofessional medication management for multimorbid patients that takes their medical conditions, but also their general living situation into account.

METHODS

A comprehensive medication management was performed, which involved the collection of information on the drugs each patient took, the way they were stored, the patient's drug intake and handling, and any problems that arose with pharmacotherapy. The interventional approach was evaluated over a period of 15 months in a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a stepped wedge design. The primary endpoint was the quality of pharmacotherapy, as assessed with the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). A mixed model was used to analyze efficacy.

RESULTS

162 patients were enrolled in the study; 142 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (53.3% women, mean age 76.8 ± 6.3 years). The mean total MAI score decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.001) from the control phase (29.21, 95% CI [26.09; 32.33]) to the intervention phase (22.27 [19.00; 25.54]), with an effect strength (Cohen's d) of -0.24 [-0.36; -0.13]. The number of drug-related problems declined as well.

CONCLUSION

In this study, interprofessional collaboration increased medication safety. Working across disciplinary boundaries allowed for a decrease in drugrelated problems and brought up aspects outside the purview of the primary care physician.

Discrepancies between home medication and patient documentation in primary care

BACKGROUND

Medication Reconciliation leads to quick detection of drug-related problems, studies in ambulatory care are scarce. The recently introduced Medication Plan in Germany serves as an ideal basis for Medication Reconciliation.

OBJECTIVE

The study aim was to provide accurate data on the magnitude of discrepancy between the prescription and the actually taken medicine. Clinical relevance of discrepancies was assessed to estimate the impact on medication safety.

METHODS

Patients were assessed at home, data was reconciled with the physician's documentation. Discrepancies were analyzed and stratified. Risk for hospitalization, risk for falls and the potential for drug-drug interactions was estimated based on literature. Drugs were tested for its origin and grouped to indication clusters. Detected DRPs at a Medication Review were linked to the results at Medication Reconciliation.

RESULTS

Medication of 142 elderly patients from 12 practices was reconciled. 1498 drugs were found at the home assessment, 1099 (73.4%) of which were detected in the physician's documentation. 94.4% of the patients were affected by discrepancies. A total of 2.8 ± 2.4 drugs was undocumented per patient. 26.6% of missing drugs were prescribed by medical specialists, 42.5% of drugs of unknown origin were prescription drugs. 53.9% of the patients used a undocumented drug, which carried a high risk for hospitalization. 23.1% of the drugs not covered were used for treatment of cardiovascular diseases. 65.8% of the differing drugs caused at least one DRP.

CONCLUSION

A high discrepancy between the drugs used by the patient and the medication documented by the primary care physician could be found. Relating drugs had a profound systemic effect and were particular relevant to medication safety. Many drugs were prescription drugs. The majority of differing drugs caused DRPs. A collaborative Medication Reconciliation as part of a Medication Management could compile the entire medication and increase patient safety.

PHARMAID study protocol: Randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of integrated pharmaceutical care at a psychosocial intervention on caregiver's burden in Alzheimer's disease or related diseases

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's Disease and Related Diseases (ADRD) are associated with a caregiver burden that increases with the progression of the disease. Psychosocial interventions reported a moderate improvement on caregivers' burden. Patients with ADRD and their older caregivers are also exposed to a higher risk of developing drug-related problems. The main objective of the PHARMAID study is to measure the impact of personalized pharmaceutical collaborative care integrated to a multidisciplinary psychosocial program on the burden of caregivers.

METHODS

The PHARMAID study is a 18-month randomized controlled trial that started in September 2016. This paper describes the study protocol. PHARMAID plans to enroll 240 dyads, i.e. ADRD patients and caregivers, whose inclusion criteria are: outpatient with mild or major neurocognitive disorders due to ADRD, living at home, receiving support from a family caregiver. Three parallel groups will compare a control group with two experimental groups: psychosocial intervention and integrated pharmaceutical care at a psychosocial intervention. The main outcome is the caregiver's burden assessed by the Zarit Burden Index at 6, 12 and 18months.

DISCUSSION

This is the first trial designed to assess the specific impact of the integration of pharmaceutical care in a multidisciplinary psychosocial program on the caregiver's burden. The results will inform policymakers on strategies to implement in the near future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

[ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02802371] Registered in June 2016.