Tamara Leila Imfeld-Isenegger1, Inês Branco Soares2, Urska Nabergoj Makovec3, Nejc Horvat4, Mitja Kos5, Foppe van Mil6, Filipa A Costa7, Kurt E Hersberger8. 1. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: tamara.isenegger@unibas.ch. 2. Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz (IUEM), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Campus Universitário, Quinta da Granja, Monte da Caparica, 2829-511, Caparica, Portugal. Electronic address: mariainesbrancosoares@gmail.com. 3. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slovenia. Electronic address: urska.nabergoj.makovec@ffa.uni-lj.si. 4. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slovenia. Electronic address: nejc.horvat@ffa.uni-lj.si. 5. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slovenia. Electronic address: mitja.kos@ffa.uni-lj.si. 6. van Mil Consultancy, Margrietlaan 1, 9471 CT, Zuidlaren, Netherlands. Electronic address: jwfvmil@vanmilconsultancy.nl. 7. Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz (IUEM), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Campus Universitário, Quinta da Granja, Monte da Caparica, 2829-511, Caparica, Portugal. Electronic address: alvesdacosta.f@gmail.com. 8. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: kurt.hersberger@unibas.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) proposed a definition and classification system (type 1, 2a, 2b, 3) for medication review in 2016. However, to date, a description of the implementation and remuneration of such procedures across Europe is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the medication review procedures and the level of implementation and remuneration in community pharmacies across Europe. METHODS: An online survey was developed to characterize medication review procedures (PCNE classification), level of implementation (considering regional or national) and remuneration by a third party. This survey was sent to a purposive sample of three individuals per country, with a working background in community pharmacy, pharmacy practice research, or health policy to ensure reliable data. Data triangulation was used and consensus sought between the responses. RESULTS: Data were received from 34 out of 44 targeted European countries (November 2016-October 2017) [response rate = 77%]. Overall, 55.9% of the countries provided at least one type of medication review as an implemented service or project. Type 1 medication review (based on the medication history) was provided in 13 countries, type 2a (medication history + patient interview) in 14, type 2b (medication history + clinical data) in two, and type 3 medication review (medication history + patient interview + clinical data) in four countries. Ten of the mentioned services or projects were remunerated by a third-party. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity was observed across Europe in various aspects, including the procedures, implementation level and remuneration obtained. Type 1 and 2a medication review services seem to be more feasible to implement in the community pharmacy than type 2b and 3. A large number of medication review projects were ongoing in community pharmacies, which suggests that new medication review services could become implemented in the coming years.
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) proposed a definition and classification system (type 1, 2a, 2b, 3) for medication review in 2016. However, to date, a description of the implementation and remuneration of such procedures across Europe is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the medication review procedures and the level of implementation and remuneration in community pharmacies across Europe. METHODS: An online survey was developed to characterize medication review procedures (PCNE classification), level of implementation (considering regional or national) and remuneration by a third party. This survey was sent to a purposive sample of three individuals per country, with a working background in community pharmacy, pharmacy practice research, or health policy to ensure reliable data. Data triangulation was used and consensus sought between the responses. RESULTS: Data were received from 34 out of 44 targeted European countries (November 2016-October 2017) [response rate = 77%]. Overall, 55.9% of the countries provided at least one type of medication review as an implemented service or project. Type 1 medication review (based on the medication history) was provided in 13 countries, type 2a (medication history + patient interview) in 14, type 2b (medication history + clinical data) in two, and type 3 medication review (medication history + patient interview + clinical data) in four countries. Ten of the mentioned services or projects were remunerated by a third-party. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity was observed across Europe in various aspects, including the procedures, implementation level and remuneration obtained. Type 1 and 2a medication review services seem to be more feasible to implement in the community pharmacy than type 2b and 3. A large number of medication review projects were ongoing in community pharmacies, which suggests that new medication review services could become implemented in the coming years.
Authors: Anneleen Robberechts; Céline De Petter; Lindsey Van Loon; Silas Rydant; Stephane Steurbaut; Guido De Meyer; Hans De Loof Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Piotr Merks; Urszula Religioni; Magdalena Waszyk-Nowaczyk; Justyna Kaźmierczak; Artur Białoszewski; Eliza Blicharska; Anna Kowalczuk; Agnieszka Neumann-Podczaska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Robert Moecker; Marina Weissenborn; Anja Klingenberg; Lucas Wirbka; Andreas Fuchs; Christiane Eickhoff; Uta Mueller; Martin Schulz; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Walter E Haefeli; Hanna M Seidling Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 2.908