Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient experiences and opinions on medication review: a qualitative study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Medication reviews are a structured critical evaluation of a patient's pharmacotherapy, carried out by a healthcare professional, but are not yet a routine pharmaceutical service in Belgium. A pilot project to initiate an advanced medication review (= type 3 medication review) in community pharmacies was set up by the Royal Pharmacists' Association of Antwerp.

Aim

To investigate the experiences and opinions of patients who participated in this pilot project.

Method

Qualitative study through semi-structured interviews with participating patients.

Results

Seventeen patients from six different pharmacies were interviewed. The medication review process with the pharmacist was perceived as positive and instructive by fifteen interviewees. The extra attention that the patient received was highly appreciated. However, the interviews revealed that patients did not fully understand the purpose and structure of this new service or were aware of the subsequent contact and feedback with the general practitioner. Medication reviews in the home setting put patients more at ease, were highly appreciated, and enabled also to address practical problems such as drug dosing or storage requirements.

Conclusion

This qualitative study analysed patients’ experiences during a pilot project on the implementation of type 3 medication review. Although most patients were enthusiastic about this new service, a lack of patients’ understanding of the whole process was also observed. Therefore, better communication to patients by pharmacists and general practitioners about the goals and components of this type of medication review is needed, with the added benefit of increased efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wiffen P, Mitchell M, Snelling M, et al. Oxford handbook of clinical pharmacy. Oxford University Press; 2017

  2. Hatah E, Tordoff J, Duffull SB, et al. Pharmacists’ performance of clinical interventions during adherence support medication reviews. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10(1):185–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Griese-Mammen N, Hersberger KE, Messerli M, et al. PCNE definition of medication review: reaching agreement. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(5):1199–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Imfeld-Isenegger TL, Soares IB, Makovec UN, et al. Community pharmacist-led medication review procedures across Europe: characterization, implementation and remuneration. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(8):1057–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schulz M, Griese-Mammen N, Muller U. Clinical pharmacy services are reimbursed in Germany: challenges of real world implementation remain. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01492-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Robberechts A, De Petter C, Van Loon L, et al. Qualitative study of medication review in Flanders, Belgium among community pharmacists and general practitioners. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021;43(5):1173–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vincent CA, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient? Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(1):76–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients’ understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:14–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Petty DR, Knapp P, Raynor DK, et al. Patients’ views of a pharmacist-run medication review clinic in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(493):607–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Carter SR, Chen TF, White L. Home medicines reviews: a quantitative study of the views of recipients and eligible non-recipients. Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20(4):209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter SR, Moles R, White L, et al. Patients’ willingness to use a pharmacist-provided medication management service: the influence of outcome expectancies and communication efficacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(6):487–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter SR, Moles R, White L, et al. Exploring patients’ motivation to participate in Australia’s home medicines review program. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(4):658–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. White L, Klinner C, Carter S. Consumer perspectives of the Australian home medicines review program: benefits and barriers. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(1):4–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Geurts M, Stewart R, Brouwers J, et al. Patient beliefs about medicines and quality of life after a clinical medication review and follow-up by a pharmaceutical care plan: a study in elderly polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2015;6:171–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, et al. The contribution of patient interviews to the identification of drug-related problems in home medication review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37(6):674–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kari H, Kortejärvi H, Airaksinen M, et al. Patient involvement is essential in identifying drug-related problems. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(9):2048–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Silverman D. Qualitative research. Fourth edition ed: Los Angeles: SAGE; 2016.

  18. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Houghton C, Murphy K, Meehan B, et al. From screening to synthesis: using nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(5–6):873–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22:63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Snell R, Langran T, Donyai P. Patient views about polypharmacy medication review clinics run by clinical pharmacists in GP practices. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(6):1162–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kempen TGH, Kälvemark A, Gillespie U, et al. Comprehensive medication reviews by ward-based pharmacists in Swedish hospitals: What does the patient have to say? J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;26(1):149–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alharthi M, Wright D, Scott S, et al. Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: do they require standardisation? a systematic review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphs.12104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med. 2011;73(7):598–603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cardosi L, Hohmeier KC, Fisher C, et al. Patient satisfaction with a comprehensive medication review provided by a community pharmacist. J Pharm Technol. 2018;34(2):48–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Flanagan PS, Barns A. Current perspectives on pharmacist home visits: do we keep reinventing the wheel? Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2018;7:141–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Janssen L, Pieters L, De Loof H. Pilot study on the utility and feasibility of a house-call checkup of the medicine cabinet. Pharmacy. 2018;6(3):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. McCormick P, Coleman B, Bates I. The value of domiciliary medication reviews - a thematic analysis of pharmacist’s views. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022;44(4):1004–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mast R, Ahmad A, Hoogenboom SC, et al. Amsterdam tool for clinical medication review: development and testing of a comprehensive tool for pharmacists and general practitioners. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:642.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Niquille A, Bugnon O. Relationship between drug-related problems and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study among cardiovascular patients. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32(4):512–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moecker R, Fuchs A, Haefeli WE, et al. Attitudes of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management in primary care: an interview study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022;44(6):1380–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all patients and local pharmacists who participated in this study and Bronwen Martin for her critical reading of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Royal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA), Consciencestraat 41, B-2018, Antwerp, Belgium

    Anneleen Robberechts

  2. Laboratory of Physiopharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerp, Belgium

    Anneleen Robberechts, Laura Van Loon, Guido R. Y. De Meyer & Hans De Loof

  3. Research Group Clinical Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Centre for Pharmaceutical Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium

    Anneleen Robberechts & Stephane Steurbaut

  4. Department of Hospital Pharmacy, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium

    Stephane Steurbaut

Authors
  1. Anneleen Robberechts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Van Loon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephane Steurbaut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guido R. Y. De Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans De Loof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anneleen Robberechts.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robberechts, A., Van Loon, L., Steurbaut, S. et al. Patient experiences and opinions on medication review: a qualitative study. Int J Clin Pharm 45, 650–658 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01541-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01541-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation