Purpose There is a lack of knowledge about factors that influence the performance of comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) by multiprofessional teams in hospital practice. This study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients from the healthcare professional perspective. Methods Physicians and ward-based pharmacists were recruited from an ongoing trial at four hospitals in Sweden. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 physicians and 7 pharmacists. Interview topics were working processes, resources, competences, medication-related problems, intervention effects and collaboration. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Identified subthemes were categorised as facilitators or barriers and grouped into overarching main themes. Results In total, 21 facilitators and 25 barriers were identified across all CFIR domains and grouped in 6 main themes: (a) CMRs and follow-up are needed, but not in all patients; (b) there is a general belief in positive effects; (c) lack of resources is an issue, although the performance of CMRs may save time; (d) pharmacists' knowledge and skills are valuable, but they need more clinical competence; (e) compatibility with hospital practice is challenging, and roles and responsibilities are unclear and (f) personal contact at the ward is essential for physician-pharmacist collaboration. Conclusion Multiple facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients exist. These factors should be addressed in future initiatives with similar interventions by multiprofessional teams to ensure successful implementation and performance in hospital practice.
Rationale, aims, and objectives: Inappropriate medication prescribing and use amongst older patients is a major patient safety and health care problem. To promote appropriate medication prescribing and use, comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) by ward-based pharmacists, including follow-up telephone calls after hospital discharge, have been conducted in older patients in the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). One of the key actors in a CMR is the patient. To support the understanding of the effects of CMRs on patients' health outcomes and improve clinical practice, knowledge about the patient perspective is needed. We therefore aimed to explore older patients' experiences with, and views on, hospital-initiated CMRs and follow-up telephone calls by ward-based clinical pharmacists within an RCT. Methods:We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 patients (66-94 years) and carers from four hospitals in Sweden. Discussion topics included communication, information, decision-making, and effects on the patient. Interviews took place after discharge, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed using a framework approach. Results: In general, patients' experiences and views were positive. Seven key themes were identified: (a) feeling of being taken care of and heterogenous health effects; (b) the pharmacist is competent; (c) despite the unclear role of pharmacists, their involvement is appreciated; (d) patients rely on health care professionals for decision-making; (e) importance of being informed, but receiving and retaining information is problematic; (f) time, location, and other factors influencing the effectiveness of CMRs; and (g) generic substitution is a problem. Conclusions: Older patients generally have positive experiences with and views on CMRs and follow-up telephone calls. However, some factors, like the unclear role of the ward-based pharmacist and problems with receiving and retaining information, may negatively impact the effectiveness of these interventions. Future initiatives on hospital-initiated CMRs by clinical pharmacists should address these negative factors and utilize the positive views. KEYWORDS clinical pharmacists, health services for the aged, interdisciplinary health team, patient involvement, qualitative research, review, drug utilization
What is known and objective Drug‐related problems (DRPs) are a growing healthcare burden worldwide. In an ongoing cluster‐randomized controlled trial in Sweden (MedBridge), comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) including post‐discharge follow‐up have been conducted in older hospitalized patients to prevent and solve DRPs. As part of a process evaluation of the MedBridge trial, this study aimed to assess the intervention fidelity and process outcomes of the trial's interventions. Methods For intervention delivery, the percentage of patients that received intervention components was calculated per study group. Process outcomes, measured in about one‐third of all intervention patients, included the following: the number of identified medication discrepancies, DRPs and recommendations to solve DRPs, correction rate of discrepancies, and implementation rate of recommendations. Results and discussion The MedBridge trial included 2637 patients (mean age: 81 years). The percentage of intervention patients (n = 1745) that received the intended intervention components was 94%‐98% during admission, and 40%‐81% upon and after discharge. The percentage of control patients (n = 892) that received at least one unintended intervention component was 15%. On average, 1.1 discrepancies and 2.0 DRPs were identified in 652 intervention patients. The correction and implementation rates were 79% and 73%, respectively. Stop medication was the most frequently implemented recommendation (n = 293) and 77% of the patients had at least one corrected discrepancy or implemented recommendation. What is new and conclusion The intervention fidelity within the MedBridge trial was high for CMRs during hospital stay and lower for intervention components upon and after discharge. The high prevalence of corrected discrepancies and implemented recommendations may explain potential effects of CMRs in the MedBridge trial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.