Drugs & Aging

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 199–204 | Cite as

Pharmacist-Led Home Medicines Review and Residential Medication Management Review: The Australian Model

  • Timothy F. ChenEmail author
Review Article


Older people are often prescribed multiple medicines and have a high prevalence of polypharmacy. Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of inappropriate use of medicines and drug-related problems. As experts in pharmacotherapy, pharmacists are well placed to review complex medication regimens and identify causes of drug-related problems and recommend solutions to prevent or resolve them. Involvement in medication review services represents a major philosophical shift and paradigm change in the way pharmacists practice, in that the focus is shifted away from the dispensing of prescription medicines to the provision of a professional service for a patient, in collaboration with their general practitioner (GP). In Australia, there are two established medication review programs: Home Medicines Review (HMR) and Residential Medication Management Review (RMMR). The objectives of this article were to describe the process of government-funded medication review services in Australia and to evaluate the contribution of pharmacists to HMR and RMMR, using evidence-based measures, such as the Drug Burden Index (DBI) and the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). This review found that there is good evidence to support the role of pharmacists in delivering medication review services across different settings. Although the positive impact of such services has been demonstrated using a variety of validated measures (DBI, MAI), there remains a need to also evaluate actual clinical outcomes and/or patient-reported outcomes.


Medication Review Aged Care Facility Home Medicine Review Drug Burden Index Medication Appropriateness Index 
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.



The European Society of Clinical Pharmacy is greatly acknowledged for organizing and holding their 42nd conference, at which the content of this manuscript was presented.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for the writing of this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest relating to the content of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Ageing and life course: interesting facts about ageing. Geneva: WHO; 2012. Online at Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  2. 2.
    Australian Government: The Treasury. Intergenerational report 2010. Australia to 2050: future challenges. Barton: Treasurury of the Commonwealth of Australia; 2010. Online at Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  3. 3.
    Pillans P. Elderly patients and polypharmacy. NPS News. 2000;13Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kouladjian L, Hilmer SN, Chen TF, Le Couteur DG, Gnjidic D. Assessing the harms of polypharmacy requires careful interpretation and consistent definitions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;78(3):670–1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gnjidic D, Hilmer SN, Blyth FM, Naganathan V, Waite L, Seibel MJ, McLachlan AJ, Cumming RG, Handelsman DJ, Le Couteur DG. Polypharmacy cutoff and outcomes: five or more medicines were used to identify community-dwelling older men at risk of different adverse outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;65:989–95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Primrose JG, Sansom LN. Drug-related hospital admissions: a review of Australian studies published 1988–1996. Med J Australia. 1998;168(8):405–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roughead EE. The nature and extent of drug-related hospitalisations in Australia. J Qual Clin Pract. 1999;19(1):19–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Application of drug-related problem (DRP) classification systems: a review of the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(7):799–815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pellegrino AN, Martin MT, Tilton JJ, Touchette DR. Medication therapy management services: definitions and outcomes. Drugs. 2009;69(4):393–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4):573–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health 2014. Australia’s health series, no. 14. Volume Cat. no. AUS 178. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Australian Government Department of Health. National Medicines Policy. Online at Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  13. 13.
    Australian Government Department of Health. The National Medicines Policy document. Online at Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  14. 14.
    Australian Government Department of Health. Medication management reviews. Online at Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  15. 15.
    Chen TF, de Almeida Neto AC. Exploring elements of interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and physicians in medication review. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(6):574–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen TF, Crampton M, Krass I, Benrimoj SI. Collaboration between community pharmacists and GPs: impact on interprofessional communication. J Soc Adm Pharm. 2001;18(3):83–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Almeida Neto AC, Chen TF. When pharmacotherapeutic recommendations may lead to the reverse effect on physician decision-making. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(1):3–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bell JS, Whitehead P, Aslani P, McLachlan AJ, Chen TF. Drug-related problems in the community setting: pharmacists’ findings and recommendations for people with mental illnesses. Clin Drug Invest. 2006;26(7):415–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basger BJ, Moles RJ, Chen TF. Development of an aggregated system for classifying causes of drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(4):405–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishtala PS, McLachlan AJ, Bell JS, Chen TF. Psychotropic prescribing in long-term care facilities: impact of medication reviews and educational interventions. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16(8):621–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nishtala PS, Hilmer SN, McLachlan AJ, Hannan PJ, Chen TF. Impact of residential medication management reviews on Drug Burden Index in aged-care homes: a retrospective analysis. Drugs Aging. 2009;26(8):677–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hilmer SN, Mager DE, Simonsick EM, et al. A drug burden index to define the functional burden of medications in older people. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(8):781–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castelino RL, Hilmer SN, Bajorek BV, Nishtala P, Chen TF. Drug Burden Index and potentially inappropriate medications in community-dwelling older people: the impact of Home Medicines Review. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(2):135–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, Cohen HJ, Feussner JR. A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(10):1045–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Retrospective evaluation of home medicines review by pharmacists in older Australian patients using the medication appropriateness index. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(12):1922–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Targeting suboptimal prescribing in the elderly: a review of the impact of pharmacy services. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(6):1096–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Castelino RL, Bajorek BV, Chen TF. Are interventions recommended by pharmacists during Home Medicines Review evidence-based? J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(1):104–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gisev N, Bell JS, O’Reilly C, Rosen A, Chen T. An expert panel assessment of comprehensive medication reviews for clients of community mental health teams. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45:1071–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    The American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(4):616–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samsa GP, Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Weinberger M, Clipp EC, Uttech KM, Lewis IK, Landsman PB, Cohen HJ. A summated score for the medication appropriateness index: development and assessment of clinimetric properties including content validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(8):891–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O’Mahony D. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46(2):72–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):213–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Basger BJ, Chen TF, Moles RJ. Inappropriate medication use and prescribing indicators in elderly Australians: development of a prescribing indicators tool. Drugs Aging. 2008;25(9):777–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Basger BJ, Chen TF, Moles RJ. Validation of prescribing appropriateness criteria for older Australians using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5):e001431.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PharmacyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations