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.
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.
Authors: Mark E Williams; Charles C Pulliam; Rebecca Hunter; Ted M Johnson; Justine E Owens; Jean Kincaid; Carol Porter; Gary Koch Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lisa Dolovich; Giulia Consiglio; Linda MacKeigan; Lusine Abrahamyan; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Valeria E Rac; Nedzad Pojskic; Elizabeth A Bojarski; Jiandong Su; Murray Krahn; Suzanne M Cadarette Journal: Can Pharm J (Ott) Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: Jordan D Haag; Amanda Z Davis; Robert W Hoel; Jeffrey J Armon; Laura J Odell; Ross A Dierkhising; Paul Y Takahashi Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2016-07
Authors: Julie Bruce; Anower Hossain; Ranjit Lall; Emma J Withers; Susanne Finnegan; Martin Underwood; Chen Ji; Chris Bojke; Roberta Longo; Claire Hulme; Susie Hennings; Ray Sheridan; Katharine Westacott; Shvaita Ralhan; Finbarr Martin; John Davison; Fiona Shaw; Dawn A Skelton; Jonathan Treml; Keith Willett; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Teagan Rolf von den Baumen; Jennifer Lake; Amanda C Everall; Katie Dainty; Zahava Rosenberg-Yunger; Sara J T Guilcher Journal: Can Pharm J (Ott) Date: 2020-09-25