RESUMEN
Pharmaceutical care was proposed to address morbidity and mortality associated with medicine-related problems. It utilises the pharmacist's expertise in medicines, their relationship with the patient and cooperation with other healthcare professionals to optimise the use of medicines. The European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM), part of the Council of Europe, found significant variation in the acceptance of pharmaceutical care and in the implementation of pharmaceutical care in Europe. A multidisciplinary group was established to draft a statement of principles and recommendations concerning pharmaceutical care. Through face-to-face meetings, circulation of draft texts and informal consultation with stakeholders, the group produced a resolution. On 11 March 2020, the resolution was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It explains pharmaceutical care and illustrates pharmacists' contribution to medicine optimisation in different care settings. Pharmaceutical care's value to health services and its place in health policy were emphasised by addressing the risks and harms from suboptimal use of medicines. Pharmaceutical care can improve medicine use, promote rational use of healthcare resources and reduce inequalities in healthcare by realigning the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists and healthcare professionals. EDQM will promote and advocate for the implementation of pharmaceutical care by enacting practice Resolution CM/Res(2020)3.
RESUMEN
Clinical pharmacy as an area of practice, education and research started developing around the 1960s when pharmacists across the globe gradually identified the need to focus more on ensuring the appropriate use of medicines to improve patient outcomes rather than being engaged in manufacturing and supply. Since that time numerous studies have shown the positive impact of clinical pharmacy services (CPS). The need for wider adoption of CPS worldwide becomes urgent, as the global population ages, and the prevalence of polypharmacy as well as shortage of healthcare professionals is rising. At the same time, there is great pressure to provide both high-quality and cost-effective health services. All these challenges urgently require the adoption of a new paradigm of healthcare system architecture. One of the most appropriate answers to these challenges is to increase the utilization of the potential of highly educated and skilled professionals widely available in these countries, i.e., pharmacists, who are well positioned to prevent and manage drug-related problems together with ensuring safe and effective use of medications with further care relating to medication adherence. Unfortunately, CPS are still underdeveloped and underutilized in some parts of Europe, namely, in most of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. This paper reviews current situation of CPS development in CEE countries and the prospects for the future of CPS in that region.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Risk-based decision making is increasingly recognized as key to support national blood policy makers and blood operators concerning the implementation of safety interventions, especially to address emerging infectious threats and new technology opportunities. There is an urgent need for practical decision support tools, especially for low- and middle-income countries that may not have the financial or technical capability to develop risk models. WHO supported the development of such a tool for blood safety. The tool enables users to perform both a quantitative Multi-Criteria Decision Assessment and a novel step-by-step qualitative assessment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This paper summarizes the content, functionalities, and added value of the new WHO tool. A fictitious case study of a safety intervention to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by transfusion was used to demonstrate the use and usefulness of the tool. RESULTS: Application of the tool highlighted strengths and weaknesses of both the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach facilitates assessment of the robustness of the decision but lacks nuances and interpretability especially when multiple constraints are taken into consideration. Conversely, while unable to provide an assessment of robustness, the step-by-step qualitative approach helps structuring the thought process and argumentation for a preferred intervention in a systematic manner. CONCLUSION: The relative strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative and step-by-step qualitative approach to risk-based decision making are complementary and mutually enhancing. A combination of the two approaches is therefore advisable to support the selection of appropriate blood safety interventions for a particular setting.
