Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a medication review in primary care: a qualitative thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient's medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age ≥ 60 years, ≥3 chronic diseases, taking ≥5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients' experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients' average age was 74 years (range 62-88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP's lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients' confidence in pharmacists' expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies' digital records of the patients' medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients' uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.

[Challenges of an integrative and personalised health care for health economics and the insurance system]. / Herausforderungen einer integrativen und personalisierten Gesundheitsversorgung für die Gesundheitsökonomie und das Versicherungssystem.

OBJECTIVES: "Stratifying medicine" is a topic of increasing importance in the public health system. There are several questions related to "stratifying medicine". This paper reconsiders definitions, opportunities and risks related to "stratifying medicine" as well as the main challenges of "stratifying medicine" from the perspective of a public health insurance. DEFINITION: The application of the term and the definition are important points to discuss. Terms such as "stratified medicine", "personalised medicine" or "individualised medicine" are used. The Techniker Krankenkasse prefers "stratifying medicine", because it usually means a medicine that tailors therapy to specific groups of patients by biomarkers. OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS: "Stratifying medicine" is associated with various hopes, e. g., the avoidance of ineffective therapies and early detection of diseases. But "stratifying medicine" also carries risks, such as an increase in the number of cases by treatment of disease risks, a duty for health and the weakening of the criteria of evidence-based medicine. CHALLENGES: The complexity of "stratifying medicine" is a big challenge for all involved parties in the health system. A lot of interrelations are still not completely understood. So the statutory health insurance faces the challenge of making innovative therapy concepts accessible in a timely manner to all insured on the one hand but on the other hand also to protect the community from harmful therapies. Information and advice to patients related to "stratifying medicine" is of particular importance. The equitable distribution of fees for diagnosis and counselling presents a particular challenge. The solidarity principle of public health insurance may be challenged by social and ethical issues of "stratifying medicine". CONCLUSION: "Stratifying medicine" offers great potential to improve medical care. However, false hopes must be avoided. Providers and payers should measure chances and risks of "stratifying medicine" together for the welfare of the patients.