Implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacy: reaching consensus on stakeholders' recommendations for mechanisms of change using the nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: Since 2022, patients with five or more medicines are eligible for a medication review (MR) in a community pharmacy remunerated by the German health system. However, implementation has been slow, with few pharmacies providing MRs. Stakeholders' input is necessary to detail how implementation strategies can be executed effectively on a national level. Prior research identified "external facilitation" and "altering incentives" as crucial strategies to achieve implementation outcomes. AIM: To gather stakeholders' recommendations for, and obtain consensus on, mechanisms of change that allow implementation strategies to work in practice. METHOD: The consensus method used was the nominal group technique (NGT) with NGT-discussions held separately with pharmacy owners and pharmacy chambers employees. Votes were summed and the relative importance (rI) calculated, defined as (score achieved for a mechanism)/(maximum possible score) × 100. Content analysis provided context for the highest ranked mechanisms and allowed linking to implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Four NGT-discussions were held in 2023 (n = 2 owners; n = 2 chamber employees) with a total of 17 participants. The overall highest ranked mechanisms were fit-for-purpose software (rI = 154.7) detailed process support (rI = 104.9) and an expert support line (rI = 77.7). These together with financial viability (rI = 40.0) were prioritised by both participant groups. Three mechanisms were favoured for both implementation strategies, namely software, process support and materials (rI = 34.3). CONCLUSION: This study identified stakeholders' priorities for mechanisms of change to implement MRs in community pharmacies. Focusing efforts on the prioritised mechanisms is likely to significantly advance a national implementation plan for countries which are at an early implementation stage.

Just a 'romantic idea'? A theory-based interview study on medication review implementation with pharmacy owners.

BACKGROUND: Recent legal changes in Germany entitle patients on multiple medications to receive a medication review (MR). However, the provision of MRs is not mandatory and pharmacy owners decide whether to implement this service in their pharmacies. AIM: To determine pharmacy owners' attitudes towards MRs, explore their experiences with MR implementation and examine their perceptions of barriers and facilitators towards implementation of MRs in community pharmacies. METHOD: Pharmacy owners were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used with selection criteria being MR-implementation stage, and geographical location of the pharmacy. The topic guide was based on a systematic review and the Framework for Implementation of Services in Pharmacy (FISpH). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded directly against the FISpH. RESULTS: Twenty-one pharmacy owners were interviewed. Despite participants' consistent positive attitude towards MRs, most believed that providing MRs on an economically viable basis would be challenging. Several practical suggestions emerged which would enable community pharmacies a smoother implementation of MRs. Suggestions included employing 'change facilitators', who visit and support implementing pharmacies; national awareness campaigns targeting patients and health professionals; reducing bureaucracy; continuing professional development; involving technicians in some MR-tasks; and offering an additional incentive to lower the initial implementation threshold. CONCLUSION: This research identified numerous factors that are likely to increase owners' and managers' support to the idea of MRs. This may be of interest to any country planning implementation of MRs.

Experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies: A systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: Though medication reviews have shown positive patient outcomes, they are still not widely implemented in community pharmacies. Published reviews on their implementation often include several other pharmacy services, making them non-specific. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus solely on the experiences of different stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews will help to better understand relevant facilitators and barriers. OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise, synthesise and present the available evidence on experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in community pharmacies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases for studies published in English, Spanish or German. Key search terms included: implementation, pharmac*, medication review, facilitator, barrier. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Findings were mapped directly against the constructs of the CFIR. RESULTS: Out of 924 retrieved records 24 articles from 9 countries met the inclusion criteria. Key facilitators identified included pharmacists' openness to practice change and a high degree of patient satisfaction post medication review. Attracting patients to the service was stated as challenging due to an unawareness of the scope and potential benefit of a medication review. The dominant barrier was inadequate remuneration, as it impacted all additional resourcing and ultimately the viability of the service. Further barriers included difficult professional relationships with doctors and little mandate from health authorities. Most reports were from the employed pharmacists' perspective and concerned the inner setting, other perspectives were under-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this systematic review illustrate different stakeholders' experiences and add to the understanding of challenges in the implementation process. Nevertheless, findings also highlight how scarce reporting of external stakeholders' views is and that filling this gap can unveil hidden barriers and facilitators. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO register (CRD 42019122836).