Medication review and reconciliation with cooperation between pharmacist and general practitioner and the benefit for the patient: a systematic review.

This article systematically reviews the literature on the impact of collaboration between pharmacists and general practitioners and describes its effect on patients' health. A systematic literature search provided 1041 articles. After first review of title and abstract, 152 articles remained. After review of the full text, 83 articles were included. All included articles are presented according to the following variables: (i) reference; (ii) design and setting of the study; (iii) inclusion criteria for patients; (iv) description of the intervention; (v) whether a patient interview was performed to involve patients' experiences with their medicine-taking behaviour; (vi) outcome; (vii) whether healthcare professionals received additional training; and (viii) whether healthcare professionals received financial reimbursement. Many different interventions are described where pharmacists and general practitioners work together to improve patients' health. Only nine studies reported hard outcomes, such as hospital (re)admissions; however, these studies had different results, not all of which were statistically significant. Randomized controlled trials should be able to describe hard outcomes, but large patient groups will be needed to perform such studies. Patient involvement is important for long-term success.

Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder.

Background A clinical medication review, including patient involvement, is expected to improve pharmaceutical care. Objective To determine whether a clinical medication review followed by a pharmaceutical care plan decreases the number of potential drug-related problems (DRPs) and pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs) and leads to a positive effect on relevant clinical and laboratory parameters for elderly cardiovascular patients with multiple drug use. Setting Randomized controlled trial in eight primary care settings in the Netherlands. Method Elderly polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder were randomized into two groups. Intervention patients received a clinical medication review, followed by a pharmaceutical care plan developed in cooperation between these patients' pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs), and agreed to by the patients. Control patients received care as usual. Patient data were collected at the start of the study (t = 0) and after 1-year follow-up (t = 1). Main outcome measure Decrease in potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs, improvement of clinical and laboratory parameters. Results 512 patients were included. An average of 2.2 potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs were defined per patient in the intervention group. After 1-year follow-up, 47.2 % of potential DRPs and PCIs were resolved. In total, 156 care interventions were proposed (0.9/patient), 108 of which were implemented after 1 year (69.2 %). For control-group patients, a total of 47 proposed care interventions were documented for 255 patients (0.2/patient); after 1 year, 43 had been implemented (91.5 %). The study intervention (p < 0.001) and the number of medicines used (p = 0.030) had a significant effect on the number of interventions proposed. Small biochemical changes in cardiovascular risk factors did occur, but the differences were small and not considered clinically relevant. Conclusion The integrated use of a clinical medication review with a pharmaceutical care plan in a primary care setting supports the detection of and decrease in DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs in almost half of the patients. Its benefit in terms of control of cardiovascular risk factors and safety parameters was relatively low. Risk stratification might be necessary to decide which patients might benefit most from this type of intervention.

The evaluation of patient self-completion concordance forms used in community pharmacy: a comparison of two European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of patient self-completion concordance forms in Dutch and Bulgarian pharmacies. Second, to show any differences in pharmacy practice and patient behaviour in two European countries: the Netherlands and Bulgaria. METHODS: A random sample of 500 pharmacies were approached per country. Patients at the start of a chronic treatment were invited to participate. At the first dispensing patients received a self-completion concordance form (SCCF). Patients were asked to fill in the SCCF at home and bring it to the appointment for their consultation at the second dispensing. After the consultations patients and pharmacists were asked to fill in a questionnaire. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-four Dutch pharmacies (99 patients) and 41 Bulgarian pharmacies (241 patients) sent back study results. A higher proportion of Bulgarian patients answered questions on the SCCF compared to Dutch patients. Patients from both countries are satisfied with the SCCF, consultation and newly started medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences between pharmacies from the Netherlands and Bulgaria exist, the SCCF can be used at the start of chronic treatment. More research in other European countries will be necessary to further develop the use of the SCCF in community pharmacies. Eventually this could be used to develop indicators to measure patient involvement in pharmaceutical care.

Development of a web-based pharmaceutical care plan to facilitate collaboration between healthcare providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: In medication therapy management there is a need for a tool to document medication reviews and pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs) as well as facilitate collaboration and sharing of patient data between different healthcare providers. Currently, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) have their own computer systems and patient files. To facilitate collaboration between different healthcare providers and to exchange patient data we developed a paper-based tool. As a result the structured collection of all relevant information for a clinical medication review was more protocol driven. The tool also enabled to plan interventions and follow-up activities: the PCP. The PCP was piloted among three GPs and six community pharmacists. Interviews with all healthcare providers concluded the PCP was found a very useful tool to collect and share patient data. A disadvantage was the time spent to collect all information. We therefore developed our PCP into a web-based tool: the web-based PCP (W-PCP). OBJECTIVES: Development of a W-PCP to (1) provide healthcare providers with information from pharmacist- and GP computer systems and (2) facilitate collaboration between healthcare providers and patients. Development and Application: W-PCP facilitates uploading and sharing of patient data among health care professionals and collaboration between professionals and patients on performing treatment plans. The W-PCP is a stand-alone application developed by cocreation using a generic software platform that provides developmental speed and flexibility. METHOD: The W-PCP was used in three research lines, two in primary care and one in a hospital setting. Outcomes measures were defined as satisfaction about efficiency and effectiveness during data sharing and documentation in providing care and conducting medication reviews using the W-PCP. First experiences concerning the use of W-PCP in a primary care setting were collected by a questionnaire and interviews with pharmacists and GPs using the W-PCP. RESULTS: A questionnaire about first experiences with the W-PCP was sent to 38 healthcare providers. 17 healthcare providers returned the questionnaire (response 44.7%). The use of W-PCP resulted in positive experiences from participating healthcare providers. One of the needs expressed is to have the W-PCP application integrated in the current pharmacy and GP computer systems. All experiences, needs, and ideas for improvement of the current application were collected. On the basis of experiences and requirements collected, the application will be further developed. CONCLUSIONS: The W-PCP application can potentially support successful collaboration between different healthcare providers and patients, which is important for medication therapy management. With this application, a successful collaboration between different healthcare providers and patients could be achieved.

Medication reconciliation to solve discrepancies in discharge documents after discharge from the hospital.

BACKGROUND: When patients are admitted to, and discharged from hospital there is a high chance of discrepancies and errors occurring during the transfer of patients' medication information. This often causes drug related problems. Correct and fast communication of patients' medication information between community pharmacy and hospital is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the number, type, and origin of discrepancies within discharge documents and between discharge documents and information in the pharmacy computer system, concerning the medication of patients living independently when they are discharged from hospital. Second, to test which variables have an impact on the number of discrepancies found and to study the time spent on the medication reconciliation process. SETTING: One quality-certified community pharmacy in the Netherlands. METHODS: Pharmacists reviewed discharge documents of patients discharged over one year. This information was compared to information available in the pharmacy computer system. Discrepancies were discussed with medical specialists and/or general practitioners. Type and origin of discrepancies were classified. Differences in variables between hospitals were tested using Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test and Pearson Chi Square test. Poisson regression analysis was performed to test the impact of variables on the number of discrepancies found. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Number, type and origin of discrepancies for all independently living patients discharged from the hospital. RESULTS: During the study period, 100 discharges took place and were analyzed. No differences were found between the two main hospitals, a university hospital and a teaching hospital. In total, 223 discrepancies were documented. Sixty-nine discharges (69.0 %) required consultation with a patients' medical specialist. A majority of the discrepancies (73.1 %) have their origin in hospital information. The number of discrepancies found increased with the number of medicines prescribed at discharge. The community pharmacist spent, on average, 45 min on the medication review after discharge. This included 11 min for counseling the patient. CONCLUSION: Many discrepancies were found between different information sources at patient discharge from hospital. A majority of the discrepancies had their origin in hospital information. The number of medicines after discharge was related to the number of discrepancies found. The medication reconciliation process took an average of 45 minutes per patient.

The evaluation of an intervention based on the application of patient self-completion concordance forms in Dutch community pharmacies and the effect on adherence to chronic medication.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of patient self-completion concordance forms and to determine the effect of patient counselling by using concordance forms on adherence to chronic medication. METHODS: Patients with a prescription for new chronic treatment were randomised in an intervention or control group. The intervention group received a concordance form to fill in at home and to discuss during a consultation 2 weeks later in the pharmacy. The control group received the usual information and instruction on how to use the medicine. Afterwards, all patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their use of medicines and contact with the pharmacy employees. Adherence to the medicine was determined using rates of prescription refills after 6 months of use. RESULTS: The questionnaires showed that patients were satisfied about the concordance model. After 6 months of use, 79% of the patients from both intervention and control group were defined as adherent. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference found in adherence between intervention and control group. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use five selected questions from the concordance form which provided most answers. Focus on one drug group and have more consultation moments.