Advertisement

Drugs & Aging

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 91–102 | Cite as

The Relationship between the Extent of Collaboration of General Practitioners and Pharmacists and the Implementation of Recommendations Arising from Medication Review

A Systematic Review
  • Henk-Frans KwintEmail author
  • Lynette Bermingham
  • Adrianne Faber
  • Jacobijn Gussekloo
  • Marcel L. Bouvy
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Many studies have investigated the effect of medication review on a variety of outcomes, but the elements of the interventions have been quite diverse. Moreover, implementation rates of recommendations also vary widely between studies.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate how the extent of collaboration between the general practitioner (GP) and the pharmacist impacts on the implementation of recommendations arising from medication review.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2000 and April 2012. Keywords included medication review, medication therapy management, pharmaceutical services and drug utilization review. Sixteen articles (describing 14 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) out of 620 titles met the inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria for the review were medication review, RCT design, involvement of both pharmacist and GP, and home-dwelling patients (mean age >70 years) who had not been recently discharged. After quality assessment of the article, the presence of the following eight key elements reflecting collaboration were scored for each intervention: pharmacist with clinical experience, own pharmacist involved, sharing of medical records, patient interview by pharmacist, invitation of patients by GP, case conference between GP and pharmacist, action plan, follow-up. The primary outcome was the implementation rate of recommendations. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the association between the implementation rate and the number of key elements present.

Results

Twelve RCTs were included after quality assessment. The mean number of key elements within the intervention was 5.2 (range 1–8). The mean implementation rate of recommendations was 50 % (range 17–86). The association between the number of key elements present in the intervention and the implementation rate of recommendations was significant: β = 0.085 (95 % CI 0.052–0.128; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

This systematic review shows a significant association between the number of key elements of the intervention reflecting collaborative aspects in medication review and the implementation rate of recommendations.

Keywords

General Practitioner Medication Review Case Conference Implementation Rate General Practitioner Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No funds were received for conducting this review. All authors declare that they have no conflict of interests that are directly relevant to the content of this study. The authors thank J.C. Riemens-Louisse, student, for her contribution to the data extraction forms and quality assessment forms and S.V. Belitser for her contribution to the statistical analysis.

Supplementary material

40266_2012_48_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (136 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 135 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rollason V, Vogt N. Reduction of polypharmacy in the elderly: a systematic review of the role of the pharmacist. Drugs Aging. 2003;20:817–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Targeting suboptimal prescribing in the elderly: a review of the impact of pharmacy services. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:1096–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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;30:205–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Ruby CM, Weinberger M. Suboptimal prescribing in older inpatients and outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:200–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaw J, Seal R, Pilling M. Task force on medicines partnership and the national collaborative medicines management services programme. Room for review: a guide to medication review. 2002. http://www.npc.nhs.uk/review_medicines/intro/resources/room_for_review.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2012.
  6. 6.
    Clyne W, Blenkinsopp A, Seal R. National prescribing centre. A guide to medication review. 2008. http://www.npc.nhs.uk/review_medicines/intro/resources/agtmr_web1.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2012.
  7. 7.
    Lowe CJ, Petty DR, Zermansky AG, Raynor DK. Development of a method for clinical medication review by a pharmacist in general practice. Pharm World Sci. 2000;22:121–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holland R, Desborough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK. Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:303–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal S, Smeaton L, Avery AJ, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nkansah N, Mostovetsky O, Yu C, Chheng T, Beney J, Bond CM, et al. Effect of outpatient pharmacists’ non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(7):CD000336.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holland R, Smith R, Harvey I. Where now for pharmacist led medication review? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:92–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Urbis Keys Young. Evaluation of the home medicines review program (pharmacy component): final report. 2005. http://www.beta.guild.org.au/uploadedfiles/Medication_Management_Reviews/Overview/Urbis%20Keys%20Young%20evaluation.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2012.
  13. 13.
    MacKeigan LD, Nissen LM. Clinical pharmacy services in the home. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 2008;16:227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niquille A, Lattman C, Bugnon O. Medication reviews led by community pharmacists in Switzerland: a qualitative survey to evaluate barriers and facilitators. Pharm Pract. 2010;8:35–42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Denneboom W, Dautzenberg MG, Grol R, De Smet PA. Treatment reviews of older people on polypharmacy in primary care: cluster controlled trial comparing two approaches. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:723–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denneboom W, Dautzenberg MGH, Grol R, De Smet PAGM. Comparison of two methods for performing treatment reviews by pharmacists and general practitioners for home-dwelling elderly people. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:446–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bryant LJ, Coster G, Gamble GD, McCormick RN. The General Practitioner-Pharmacist Collaboration (GPPC) study: a randomised controlled trial of clinical medication reviews in community pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19:94–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Isetts BJ, Brown LM, Schondelmeyer SW, Lenarz LA. Quality assessment of a collaborative approach for decreasing drug-related morbidity and achieving therapeutic goals. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1813–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Lowe CJ, Freemantle N, Vail A. Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of patients on repeat prescriptions in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6:1–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1235–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allard J, Hebert R, Rioux M, Asselin J, Voyer L. Efficacy of a clinical medication review on the number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions prescribed for community-dwelling elderly people. CMAJ. 2001;164:1291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernsten C, Bjorkman I, Caramona M, Crealey G, Frokjaer B, Grundberger E, et al. Improving the well-being of elderly patients via community pharmacy-based provision of pharmaceutical care: a multicentre study in seven European countries. Drugs Aging. 2001;18:63–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grymonpre RE, Williamson DA, Montgomery PR. Impact of a pharmaceutical care model for non-institutionalised elderly: results of a randomised, controlled trial. Int J Pharm Practice. 2001;9:235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. Effects of medication review on drug-related problems in patients using automated drug-dispensing systems: a pragmatic randomized controlled study. Drugs Aging. 2011;28:305–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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. CMAJ. 2003;169:17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sorensen L, Stokes JA, Purdie DM, Woodward M, Elliott R, Roberts MS. Medication reviews in the community: results of a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:648–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sturgess IK, McElnay JC, Hughes CM, Crealey G. Community pharmacy based provision of pharmaceutical care to older patients. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25:218–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Volume CI, Farris KB, Kassam R, Cox CE, Cave A. Pharmaceutical care research and education project: patient outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41:411–20.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kassam R, Farris KB, Burback L, Volume CI, Cox CE, Cave A. Pharmaceutical care research and education project: pharmacists’ interventions. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41:401–10.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams ME, Pulliam CC, Hunter R, Johnson TM, Owens JE, Kincaid J, et al. The short-term effect of interdisciplinary medication review on function and cost in ambulatory elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:93–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Freemantle N, Vail A, Lowe CJ. Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ. 2001;323:1340–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Almeida Neto AC, Chen TF. Exploring elements of interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and physicians in medication review. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:574–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nishtala PS, McLachlan AJ, Bell JS, Chen TF. A retrospective study of drug-related problems in Australian aged care homes: medication reviews involving pharmacists and general practitioners. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17:97–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spinewine A, Swine C, Dhillon S, Lambert P, Nachega JB, Wilmotte L, et al. Effect of a collaborative approach on the quality of prescribing for geriatric inpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:658–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, Garmo H, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Toss H, et al. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:894–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Makowsky MJ, Koshman SL, Midodzi WK, Tsuyuki RT. Capturing outcomes of clinical activities performed by a rounding pharmacist practicing in a team environment: the COLLABORATE study. Med Care. 2009;47:642–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bryant L, Coster G, McCormick R. General practitioner perceptions of clinical medication reviews undertaken by community pharmacists. J Prim Health Care. 2010;2:225–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bond C. The MEDMAN study: a randomized controlled trial of community pharmacy-led medicines management for patients with coronary heart disease. Fam Pract. 2007;24:189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Farris KB, Cote I, Feeny D, Johnson JA, Tsuyuki RT, Brilliant S, et al. Enhancing primary care for complex patients: demonstration project using multidisciplinary teams. Can Fam Physician. 2004;50:998–1003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Krass I, Smith C. Impact of medication regimen reviews performed by community pharmacists for ambulatory patients through liaisons with general medical practitioners. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;8:111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Halvorsen KH, Ruths S, Granas AG, Viktil KK. Multidisciplinary intervention to identify and resolve drug-related problems in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2010;28:82–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk-Frans Kwint
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lynette Bermingham
    • 3
  • Adrianne Faber
    • 2
  • Jacobijn Gussekloo
    • 3
  • Marcel L. Bouvy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical PharmacologyUtrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and PolicyLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and Primary CareLeiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations