Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Ruby CM, Weinberger M. Suboptimal prescribing in older inpatients and outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:200–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

  11. Holland R, Smith R, Harvey I. Where now for pharmacist led medication review? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:92–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. MacKeigan LD, Nissen LM. Clinical pharmacy services in the home. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 2008;16:227–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), PO Box 80082, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Henk-Frans Kwint & Marcel L. Bouvy

  2. SIR Institute for Pharmacy Practice and Policy, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Henk-Frans Kwint, Adrianne Faber & Marcel L. Bouvy

  3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Lynette Bermingham & Jacobijn Gussekloo

Authors
  1. Henk-Frans Kwint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynette Bermingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adrianne Faber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacobijn Gussekloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcel L. Bouvy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk-Frans Kwint.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 135 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kwint, HF., Bermingham, L., Faber, A. et al. The Relationship between the Extent of Collaboration of General Practitioners and Pharmacists and the Implementation of Recommendations Arising from Medication Review. Drugs Aging 30, 91–102 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-012-0048-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-012-0048-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation