Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 719–726 | Cite as

Implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies and their effect on potentially inappropriate drug use in elderly patients

  • Martina TeichertEmail author
  • Susan Noyon Luijben
  • Anouk Wereldsma
  • Ton Schalk
  • Jacqueline Janssen
  • Michel Wensing
  • Peter de Smet
Research Article

Abstract

Background In 2008 recommendations were launched to prevent medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Elderly patients using several drugs on a chronic basis were among the target group. Pharmacy-led medication reviews (MRs) were identified as having potential for improving patient safety. Objective This observational study evaluated the implementation success rate of performing all five steps of a complete MR for patients and changes in the presence of nine issues of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use. This change was compared between patients with a complete MR (intervention group, IG) and a reference group (RG) who attended the same pharmacy; all patients were eligible for MR, but only selected patients formed the IG. Setting Dutch community pharmacy. Method After appropriate training, the rate of IG with complete MRs was measured by pharmacists registering the various MR steps in the MR tool. Patients were eligible for a MR if aged ≥65 years with ≥5 drugs being used chronically. Main outcome measures The success rate of implementing MRs with five steps completed; the presence of nine PIMs for both study groups. Results In pharmacies with specifically trained pharmacists, 63 % of selected patients received a complete MR. This was 12 % higher than in pharmacies without trained pharmacists. PIMs reported at study start declined in the IG and at study end had decreased by an average of 19 % (with a range between 34 and 100 % per PIM); this decrease did not significantly differ from the RG. Conclusion Additional efforts are needed to improve the implementation of pharmacist-led MRs in order to realize its full potential in general practice, and for a substantial decrease of PIMs to occur in susceptible patients. These efforts should focus on training courses and additional support using computerized systems to share information with GPs and to register MR activities, together with sufficient financial reimbursement.

Keywords

Drug safety Elderly Implementation Medication review Potentially inappropriate medication The Netherlands 

Notes

Funding

Achmea Health Care Insurance paid a fee to pharmacists who had attended the training course and completed MRs and registrations using the web-based tool for at least 20 eligible patients during the study period; 45 Euros per patient was paid per completed MR. Achmea was not involved in the design or conduct of the study, or the collection, management or analysis of data.

Conflicts of interest

We have no conflict of interest to report.

Supplementary material

11096_2013_9794_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 46 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Leendertse A, Egberts A, Stoker L, Bemt P. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in The Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;17:1890–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, Kingma HJ, Stricker BHC. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a Nationwide Study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2006;29(2):161–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budnitz D, Lovegrove M, Shehab N, Richards C. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2000–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howard R, Avery A, Bissell P. Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17:109–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warlé-Van Herwaarden M, Kramers C, Sturkenboom M, Van den Bemt P, De Smet P. Targeting outpatient drug safety: recommendations of the dutch HARM-wrestling task force. Drug Safety. 2012;35(3):245–59.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buurma H, Bouvy ML, De Smet PAGM, Floor-Schreudering A, Leufkens HGM, Egberts ACG. Prevalence and determinants of pharmacy shopping behaviour. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008;33(1):17–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krska J, Cromarty JA, Arris F, Jamieson D, Hansford D, Duffus PRS, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in primary care. Age Ageing. 2001;30(3):205–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkers F, Maring J, Boersma F, Taxis K. A study of medication reviews to identify drug-related problems of polypharmacy patients in the Dutch nursing home setting. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32:469–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schnipper J, Kirwin J, Cotugno M, Wahlstrom S, Brown B, Tarvin E, et al. Role of pharmacists counselling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sellors J, Kaczorowski J, Sellors C, Dolovich L, Woodward C, Willan A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a pharmacist consultation program for family physicians and their elderly patients. Can Med Assoc. 2003;169(1):17–22.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zermansky A, Silcock J. Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective?: a narrative review of the literature, focusing on costs and benefits. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):11–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sorensen L, Stokes L, Purdie D, Woodward M, Elliott R, Roberts M. Medication reviews in the community: results of a randomized, controlled effectiveness trail. British J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58(6):648–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Avery A, Rodgers S, Cantrill J, Armstrong S, Cresswell K, Eden M, et al. A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1310–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stuijt C, Franssen E, Egberts A, Hudson S. Appropriateness of prescribing among elderly patients in a Dutch residential home: observational study of outcomes after a pharmacist-led medication review. Drugs Aging. 2008;25(11):947–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furniss L, Burns A, Craig S, Scobie S, Cooke J, Faragher B. Effects of a pharmacist’s medication review in nursing homes. British J Psychiatr. 2000;175:563–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leendertse A, de Koning F, Goudswaard A, Jonkhoff A, van den Bogert S, de Gier H, et al. Preventing hospital admissions by reviewing medication (PHARM) in primary care: design of the cluster randomised, controlled, multi-centre PHARM-study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;7(11):4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment. Oslo 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teichert M, Visser LE, Dufour M, Rodenburg E, Straus SMJM, De Smet PAGM, et al. Isotretinoin use and compliance with the Dutch pregnancy prevention programme: a retrospective cohort study in females of reproductive age using pharmacy dispensing data. Drug Saf. 2010;33(4):315–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    KNMP. National Quality aspects of community pharmacies. wwwapotheeknl/Zoek_een_apotheek/Apotheken/defaultaspx?mId=10855&rId= visited on 19th of October 2012.
  20. 20.
    Holland R, Brooksby J, Lenaghan E, et al. Effectiveness of visits from community pharmacists for patients with heart failure. British Med J. 2007;334:1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorensen L, Stokes J, Purdie D, Woodward M, Eliott R, Roberts M. Medication reviews in the community: results of a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. British J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58(6):648–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlun-Udenaes M, Toss H, et al. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years and older. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):894–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Teichert
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Susan Noyon Luijben
    • 3
  • Anouk Wereldsma
    • 3
  • Ton Schalk
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jacqueline Janssen
    • 4
  • Michel Wensing
    • 1
  • Peter de Smet
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare)Radboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Koninklijk Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der PharmacieThe HagueThe Netherlands
  3. 3.AchmeaLeidenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Stichting Farmaceutische KengetallenThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations