Strategies employed and experiences associated with the implementation of pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards: A scoping review
Alan Maicon de Oliveira, João Paulo Vilela Rodrigues, Isabella do Vale de Souza, Thalita Zago Oliveira, Márcia dos Santos, Fabiana Rossi Varallo, Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira
{"title":"Strategies employed and experiences associated with the implementation of pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards: A scoping review","authors":"Alan Maicon de Oliveira, João Paulo Vilela Rodrigues, Isabella do Vale de Souza, Thalita Zago Oliveira, Márcia dos Santos, Fabiana Rossi Varallo, Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence indicates a lack of clarity regarding the contributions of interventions aimed at optimizing pharmacotherapy, primarily guided by pharmaceutical care, for clinically significant improvements in older individuals. Thus, there is a need to deepen the understanding of this scenario and the factors involved. Therefore, this study aims to map and summarize scientific evidence regarding experiences and strategies employed in providing pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards. A scoping review was conducted based on 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria, published up to September 2024, and in English, Spanish or Portuguese were selected. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Screening, eligibility, extraction and assessment of the studies were carried out by 2 independent researchers. The exploration of bibliographic databases yielded 3,976 references, and 40 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. Predominantly conducted in countries with high human development, these studies categorized services and interventions as: (i) medication review; (ii) medication reconciliation; and (iii) pharmaceutical counselling. Highlighted tools included STOPP and START criteria, Beers criteria, and the Medication Appropriateness Index, facilitating identification of issues such as potentially inappropriate medications (27.6–90.8% of older individuals using at least 1 potentially inappropriate medication), drug-related problems (34.5–98.2% of patients with at least 1 drug-related problem) and adverse drug events (58–88.4% of patients with at least 1 adverse drug event). The acceptance rate of interventions exhibited considerable variation (13–95.3%). Only 10 studies evaluated clinical outcomes in patients. Barriers included the need for additional training for pharmacists in geriatrics, significant time investment, lack of continuity in assessments and a lack of recognition of interventions by other members of the multiprofessional team. There is a clear trend towards improving medication prescription adequacy and contributing to the quality of pharmacotherapy through pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards. However, several gaps still need to be addressed, and this review emphasizes identifying obstacles to be overcome, providing guidance for future investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":"91 3","pages":"729-739"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.16373","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evidence indicates a lack of clarity regarding the contributions of interventions aimed at optimizing pharmacotherapy, primarily guided by pharmaceutical care, for clinically significant improvements in older individuals. Thus, there is a need to deepen the understanding of this scenario and the factors involved. Therefore, this study aims to map and summarize scientific evidence regarding experiences and strategies employed in providing pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards. A scoping review was conducted based on 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria, published up to September 2024, and in English, Spanish or Portuguese were selected. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Screening, eligibility, extraction and assessment of the studies were carried out by 2 independent researchers. The exploration of bibliographic databases yielded 3,976 references, and 40 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. Predominantly conducted in countries with high human development, these studies categorized services and interventions as: (i) medication review; (ii) medication reconciliation; and (iii) pharmaceutical counselling. Highlighted tools included STOPP and START criteria, Beers criteria, and the Medication Appropriateness Index, facilitating identification of issues such as potentially inappropriate medications (27.6–90.8% of older individuals using at least 1 potentially inappropriate medication), drug-related problems (34.5–98.2% of patients with at least 1 drug-related problem) and adverse drug events (58–88.4% of patients with at least 1 adverse drug event). The acceptance rate of interventions exhibited considerable variation (13–95.3%). Only 10 studies evaluated clinical outcomes in patients. Barriers included the need for additional training for pharmacists in geriatrics, significant time investment, lack of continuity in assessments and a lack of recognition of interventions by other members of the multiprofessional team. There is a clear trend towards improving medication prescription adequacy and contributing to the quality of pharmacotherapy through pharmaceutical services and interventions in geriatric wards. However, several gaps still need to be addressed, and this review emphasizes identifying obstacles to be overcome, providing guidance for future investigations.
有证据表明,旨在优化药物治疗的干预措施(主要由药学护理指导)对老年人临床显着改善的作用尚不明确。因此,有必要加深对这种情况和所涉及的因素的理解。因此,本研究旨在绘制和总结有关在老年病房提供药物服务和干预措施的经验和策略的科学证据。基于3个电子数据库(PubMed、EMBASE和Web of Science)进行了范围综述。符合纳入标准的研究,发表到2024年9月,英语,西班牙语或葡萄牙语被选中。实验和观察性研究符合纳入条件。研究的筛选、资格、提取和评估由2名独立研究人员进行。对书目数据库的探索产生了3,976篇参考文献,其中40篇研究被认为适合纳入。这些研究主要在人类发展水平较高的国家进行,将服务和干预措施分类为:(i)药物审查;(ii)药物和解;(三)药物咨询。重点强调的工具包括STOPP和START标准、Beers标准和药物适当性指数,这些工具有助于识别潜在的不适当药物(27.6-90.8%的老年人使用至少一种潜在的不适当药物)、药物相关问题(34.5-98.2%的患者至少有一种药物相关问题)和药物不良事件(58-88.4%的患者至少有一种药物不良事件)等问题。干预措施的接受率差异较大(13-95.3%)。只有10项研究评估了患者的临床结果。障碍包括需要对老年病学药剂师进行额外培训、投入大量时间、评估缺乏连续性以及多专业团队其他成员对干预措施缺乏认识。有一个明显的趋势是改善药物处方的充分性,并通过药物服务和干预措施在老年病房促进药物治疗的质量。然而,仍有一些差距需要解决,本综述强调确定需要克服的障碍,为今后的调查提供指导。
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.