Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017283
Miriam E Craske, Wendy Hardeman, Nicholas Steel, Michael J Twigg
{"title":"Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.","authors":"Miriam E Craske, Wendy Hardeman, Nicholas Steel, Michael J Twigg","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as 'a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient's total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems'. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were \"medication review\", \"pharmacist\", \"randomised controlled trial\" and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews' components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients' ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42020173907.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"808-822"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017283","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as 'a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient's total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems'. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes.

Aim: To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews.

Method: Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were "medication review", "pharmacist", "randomised controlled trial" and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews' components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables.

Results: Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients' ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems.

Conclusion: This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation.

Prospero registration number: CRD42020173907.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药剂师主导的药物回顾的组成部分及其与结果的关系:系统回顾与叙事综合。
简介:以药剂师为主导的用药回顾是一项成熟的干预措施,可为开具多种药物或用药方案复杂的患者提供支持。在本次系统性回顾中,用药回顾被定义为 "药剂师与患者之间的协商,以回顾患者的全部用药情况,从而改善患者的健康状况并最大限度地减少与药物相关的问题"。目前尚不清楚不同的药物回顾方法会产生不同的结果。目的:探讨与药剂师指导的药物回顾所产生的积极结果相关的共同主题:方法:纳入以药剂师为主导、针对 18 岁及以上成年人进行药物回顾的随机对照试验。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Web of Science 数据库中使用的检索词为 "药物回顾"、"药剂师"、"随机对照试验 "及其同义词,时间筛选为 2015 年至 2023 年 9 月。2015 年之前发表的研究从之前的系统综述中识别。偏倚风险采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险 2 工具进行评估。对药物综述的组成、实施和结果进行叙述性综合,以找出共同的主题。结果以表格形式呈现:共有 68 篇论文、50 项研究符合纳入标准。综述中发现的共同主题包括:协同工作有助于减少药物相关问题和处方药数量;患者参与目标设定和行动规划,可提高患者按处方服药的能力并帮助他们实现治疗目标;额外支持和随访可改善血压、糖尿病控制、生活质量并减少药物相关问题:本系统综述发现了一些共同的主题和组成部分,如目标设定、行动规划、额外支持和随访,这些可能会影响药剂师指导的用药点评的结果。研究人员、医疗专业人员和专员可利用这些内容对用药点评的实施情况进行全面评估:CRD42020173907。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
Comparing safety, performance and user perceptions of a patient-specific indication-based prescribing tool with current practice: a mixed methods randomised user testing study. Results of a healthcare transition learning collaborative for emerging adults with sickle cell disease: the ST3P-UP study transition quality improvement collaborative. Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Longitudinal cohort study of discrepancies between prescribed and administered polypharmacy rates: implications for National Aged Care Quality Indicator Programs. Why a sociotechnical framework is necessary to address diagnostic error.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1