ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a routine medication review service in German community pharmacies (ATHINA) on drug-related problems (DRPs) and patient-related outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to 2017, ATHINA patients were invited by their pharmacists to participate in a prospective, observational trial, meaning that they needed to attend to a follow-up visit (T2) 3 - 6 months after the routine ATHINA baseline (T0) and concluding visit (T1) to assess implementation rates of the pharmacists' interventions. Moreover, they were asked to fill in 2 surveys on drug treatment-related quality of life and satisfaction with the amount of information received about medicines at T0, T1, and T2. RESULTS: Of 132 recruited patients, 115 completed T2. At T0, pharmacists documented a DRP or information need for 114 of 115 patients. About half of these issues were resolved leading to 43/115 patients without any DRP or information need at T1 and 50/115 patients without any DRP or information need at T2 (i.e., absolute reduction by 42.6%, p < 0.001). Also, the number of patients who felt that their daily life was not impaired at all or only very slightly by their drug treatment increased from 54.7% (58/106) at T0 to 67.6% (73/108, p = 0.011) at T2. While the overall satisfaction score with the amount of information on medicines increased from 10.2 ± 5.5 at T0 over 14.6 ± 3.8 (T1) to 15.4 ± 3.1 (T2, p < 0.001), this increase did not correlate with reduced information needs. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the intervention improves medication- and patient-related outcomes. However, causal relationships are still questionable.
Subject(s)
Community Pharmacy Services , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Pharmacies , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/prevention & control , Germany , Humans , Pharmacists , Prospective Studies , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Medication reviews are recognized services to increase quality of therapy and reduce medication risks. The selection of eligible patients with potential to receive a major benefit is based on assumptions rather than on factual data. Acceptance of interprofessional collaboration is crucial to increase the quality of medication therapy. OBJECTIVE: The research question was to identify and prioritize eligible patients for a medication review and to provide evidence-based criteria for patient selection. Acceptance of the prescribing general practitioner to implement pharmaceutical recommendations was measured and factors influencing physicians' acceptance were explored to obtain an impression on the extent of collaboration in medication review in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: Based on data of a cluster-randomized controlled study (WestGem-study), the correlation between patient parameters and the individual performance in a medication review was calculated in a multiple logistic regression model. Physician's acceptance of the suggested intervention was assessed using feedback forms. Influential factors were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of drugs in use (p = 0.001), discrepancies between prescribed and used medicines (p = 0.014), the baseline Medication Appropriateness Index score (p<0.001) and the duration of the intervention (p = 0.006) could be identified as influential factors for a major benefit from a medication review, whereas morbidity (p>0.05) and a low kidney function (p>0.05) do not predetermine the outcome. Longitudinal patient care with repeated reviews showed higher interprofessional acceptance and superior patient benefit. A total of 54.9% of the recommendations in a medication review on drug therapy were accepted for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The number of drugs in use and medication reconciliation could be a first rational step in patient selection for a medication review. Most elderly, multimorbid patients with polymedication experience a similar chance of receiving a benefit from a medication review. Longitudinal patient care should be preferred over confined medication reviews. The acceptance of medication reviews by physicians supports further implementation into health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN41595373.
