Pharmacy World & Science

, 31:630 | Cite as

Medication review and patient counselling at discharge from the hospital by community pharmacists

  • J. G. HugtenburgEmail author
  • S. D. Borgsteede
  • J. J. Beckeringh
Research Article


Aims In 2001, the Association of Amsterdam Community Pharmacists adopted a programme to improve the pharmaceutical care of patients who were discharged from hospital with five or more drug prescriptions. A comprehensive protocol for pharmaceutical care at discharge (IBOM-1) was developed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the initial IBOM protocol and to study the effects of the protocol on drug therapy and patient satisfaction as well as on drug use compliance and mortality. Method A controlled intervention study involving 37 community pharmacies and 715 of their registered patients who were discharged from a hospital and using at least five prescribed drugs in the years 2001–2003. The intervention included an extensive medication review and drug counselling at the patient’s home. Main outcome measure Pharmacy intervention activities, changes in medication, discontinuation of drugs prescribed at discharge, mortality, time spent on the intervention activities, and medication cost savings were all evaluated. Patient satisfaction was measured by means of a questionnaire. Results 379 and 336 patients were enrolled in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The mean number of drugs per patient not dispensed, concomitantly dispensed, or of which the quantity was changed was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (0.70 ± 1.74 vs. 0.40 ± 1.43, 0.11 ± 0.40 vs. 0.038 ± 0.26, and 0.29 ± 1.05 vs. 0.097 ± 0.52, respectively). The mean number of drugs for which the dose or dosage form was changed was similar in both groups. Substitution of brand for generic or vice versa was greater in the intervention group. Changes resulting from a PAIS signal were similar in both groups. The mean number of drugs per patient for which contact was required with the physician or the Pharmacy Hospital Service Desk was higher in the intervention group (0.35 ± 0.51 vs. 0.16 ± 0.38). About 40% of home visits resulted in the clearing of redundant drug supplies. The IBOM-1 intervention did not influence discontinuation of drugs prescribed at discharge, nor did it influence mortality. Medication costs were slightly reduced. More patients of intervention pharmacies than of control pharmacies indicated that they were (very) satisfied with the drug counselling by their community pharmacist upon delivery of their discharge medication (87% vs. 50%; χ2 < 0.001). Conclusions Structured pharmaceutical care according to the IBOM-1 protocol led to more changes in drug therapy. Home visits resulted in the clearing of redundant home drug supplies. In addition, patients were highly satisfied with the counselling at discharge from hospital by their community pharmacist. Patient counselling at discharge from hospital by pharmacists, therefore, appears to be a meaningful pharmaceutical care activity.


Discharge from hospital Drug counselling Medication review Patient satisfaction Persistence Polypharmacy The Netherlands 



All pharmacists and patients who participated in the study are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance and co-operation.


Funding of the study by AGIS health insurance company, Amsterdam, and WINap Dutch Scientific Institute of Pharmacists is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    Tam VC, Knowles SR, Cornish PL, Fine N, Marchesano R, Etchells EE. Frequency, type and clinical importance of medication history errors at admission to hospital: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2005;173:510–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiMatteo MR. Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med Care. 2004;42:200–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winterstein AG, Sauer BC, Hepler CD, Poole C. Preventable drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:1238–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Audit Commission. A prescription for improvement. Towards more rational prescribing in general practice. London: HMSO; 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Runciman WB, Roughead EE, Semple SJ, Adams RJ. Adverse drug events and medication errors in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(1):i49–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lundkvist J, Johnsson B. Pharmacoeconomics of adverse drug reactions. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004;18:275–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:46–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller GC, Britt HC, Valenti L. Adverse drug events in general practice patients in Australia. MJA. 2006;184:321–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal S, Smeaton L, Avery A, Hurwitz B, Sheikh A. Interventions in primary care to reduce medication related adverse events and hospital admissions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:23–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, Wahlstrom SA, Brown BA, Tarvin E, et al. Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:565–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu JY, Leung WY, Chang S, Lee B, Zee B, Tong PC, et al. Effectiveness of telephone counselling by a pharmacist in reducing mortality in patients receiving polypharmacy: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2006; 333:522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kripalani S, Jackson AT, Schnipper JL, Coleman EA. Promoting effective transitions of care at hospital discharge: a review of key issues for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2007;2:314–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buurma H, De Smet PA, Egberts AC. Clinical risk management in Dutch community pharmacies: the case of drug–drug interactions. Drug Saf. 2006;29:723–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viktil KK, Blix HS. The impact of clinical pharmacists on drug-related problems and clinical outcomes. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;102:275–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Shaw J, Seal R, Pilling M. Room for review. A guide to medication review: the agenda for patients, practitioners and managers. London: Medicines Partnership; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herings RMC, Leufkens HGM, Heerdink ER. Chronic pharmacotherapy continued. Utrecht: PHARMO Institute for Pharmaco-Epidemiological Research; 2002 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, Jacobsen BS, Mezey MD, Pauly MV, et al. Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1999;281(7):613–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryder M, Travers B, Ledwidge M, McDonald K. Multidisciplinary care of heart failure: what have we learned and where can we improve? Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2003;2(4):247–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stewart S, Marley JE, Horowitz JD. Effects of a multidisciplinary, home-based intervention on unplanned readmissions and survival among patients with chronic congestive heart failure: a randomised controlled study. Lancet. 1999;354(9184):1077–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nazareth I, Burton A, Shulman S, Smith P, Haines A, Timberal H. A pharmacy discharge plan for hospitalized elderly patients—a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2001;1:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holland R, Lenaghan E, Harvey I, Smith R, Shepstone L, Lipp A, et al. Does home-based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2005;330(7486):293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lenaghan E, Holland R, Brooks A. Home-based medication review in a high risk elderly population in primary care—the POLYMED randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2007;36:292–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. G. Hugtenburg
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. D. Borgsteede
    • 2
  • J. J. Beckeringh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and PharmacyVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Hospital PharmacySint Lucas Andreas HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Dutch Health Insurance BoardDiemenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations