Self medication is becoming an increasingly important area within healthcare. It moves patients towards greater independence in making decisions about management of minor illnesses, thereby promoting empowerment. Self medication also has advantages for healthcare systems as it facilitates better use of clinical skills, increases access to medication and may contribute to reducing prescribed drug costs associated with publicly funded health programmes. However, self medication is associated with risks such as misdiagnosis, use of excessive drug dosage, prolonged duration of use, drug interactions and polypharmacy. The latter may be particularly problematic in the elderly. Monitoring systems, a partnership between patients, physicians and pharmacists and the provision of education and information to all concerned on safe self medication, are proposed strategies for maximising benefit and minimising risk.

BackgroundInappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people.MethodsForty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3.ResultsNinety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025.ConclusionConsensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.

BackgroundMultimorbidity and its associated polypharmacy contribute to an increase in adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and healthcare spending. This study aimed to address: what exists regarding polypharmacy management in the European Union (EU); why programs were, or were not, developed; and, how identified initiatives were developed, implemented, and sustained.MethodsChange management principles (Kotter) and normalization process theory (NPT) informed data collection and analysis. Nine case studies were conducted in eight EU countries: Germany (Lower Saxony), Greece, Italy (Campania), Poland, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden (Uppsala), and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland). The workflow included a review of country/region specific polypharmacy policies, key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in policy development and implementation and, focus groups of clinicians and managers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of individual cases and framework analysis across cases.ResultsPolypharmacy initiatives were identified in five regions (Catalonia, Lower Saxony, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Uppsala) and included all care settings. There was agreement, even in cases without initiatives, that polypharmacy is a significant issue to address. Common themes regarding the development and implementation of polypharmacy management initiatives were: locally adapted solutions, organizational culture supporting innovation and teamwork, adequate workforce training, multidisciplinary teams, changes in workflow, redefinition of roles and responsibilities of professionals, policies and legislation supporting the initiative, and data management and information and communication systems to assist development and implementation. Depending on the setting, these were considered either facilitators or barriers to implementation.ConclusionWithin the studied EU countries, polypharmacy management was not widely addressed. These results highlight the importance of change management and theory-based implementation strategies, and provide examples of polypharmacy management initiatives that can assist managers and policymakers in developing new programs or scaling up existing ones, particularly in places currently lacking such initiatives.

AIMSTo implement pharmacist-led, postdischarge telephone follow-up (TFU) intervention and to evaluate its impact on rehospitalization parameters in polypharmacy patients, via comparison with a well-matched control group. METHODPragmatic, prospective, quasi-experimental study. Intervention patients were matched by propensity score techniques with a control group. Guided by results from a pilot study, clinical pharmacists implemented TFU intervention, added to routine integrated medicines management service. RESULTSUsing an intention to treat approach, reductions in 30-and 90-day readmission rates for intervention patients compared with controls were 9.9% [odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.90; P < 0.001] and 15.2% (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36-0.79; P = 0.021) respectively. Marginal mean time to readmission was 70.9 days (95% CI: 66.9-74.9) for intervention group compared with 60.1 days (95% CI: 55.4-64.7) for controls. Mean length of hospital stay compared with control was (8.3 days vs. 6.7 days; P < 0.001). Benefit: cost ratio for 30-day readmissions was 29.62, and 23.58 for 90-day interval. Per protocol analyses gave more marked improvements. In intervention patients, mean concern scale score, using Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire, was reduced 3.2 (95% CI: -4.22 to À2.27; P < 0.001). Mean difference in Medication Adherence Report Scale was 1.4 (22.7 vs. 24.1; P < 0.001). Most patients (83.8%) reported having better control of their medicines after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS Pharmacist-led postdischarge structured TFU intervention can reduce 30-and 90-day readmission rates. Positive impacts were noted on time to readmission, length of hospital stay upon readmission, healthcare costs, patient beliefs about medicines, patient self-reported adherence and satisfaction. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Br J Clin Pharmacol (2019) 85 616-625 616• Telephone follow-up (TFU) is a well-established and widely used approach for exchanging information with patients. It has been applied in continuity of care after hospitalization. • Mixed results have been reported when TFU was combined with predischarge and other postdischarge interventions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS• This study applied the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach, endorsed by the National Institute for Health and CareExcellence Medicines Guidelines, to tailor medication support to meet the needs of the individual. • We utilized propensity score matching to obtain a well-matched control group, to determine the impact of a pharmacistled postdischarge telephone intervention on readmission rate. • This is the first study to present the benefit-cost ratio of the impact of TFU on readmission rate. Continuityof patient care post-hospitalisation Br J Clin Pharmacol (2019) 85 616-625 617 Continuity of patient care post-hospitalisation Br J Clin Pharmacol (2019) 85 616-625 623

This study demonstrated significant improvements in the appropriateness of medications on discharge for patients receiving an IMM service compared with patients who did not receive this service.

This study represents the first reported structured attempt by community pharmacists in the UK to address the abuse/misuse of OTC medication. Work is now ongoing to modify this model in light of the pilot study findings.

Background There is a major drive within healthcare to reduce patient readmissions, from patient care and cost perspectives. Pharmacist-led innovations have been demonstrated to enhance patient outcomes. Objective To assess the impact of a post-discharge, pharmacist-led medicines optimisation clinic on readmission parameters. Assessment of the economic, clinical and humanistic outcomes were considered. Setting Respiratory and cardiology wards in a district general hospital in Northern Ireland. Method Randomised, controlled trial. Blinded random sequence generation; a closed envelope-based system, with block randomisation. Adult patients with acute unplanned admission to medical wards subject to inclusion criteria were invited to attend clinic. Analysis was carried out for intention-to-treat and per-protocol perspectives. Main Outcome Measure 30-day readmission rate. Results Readmission rate reduction at 30 days was 9.6% (P = 0.42) and the reduction in multiple readmissions over 180-days was 29.1% (P = 0.003) for the intention-to-treat group (n = 31) compared to the control group (n = 31). Incidence rate ratio for control patients for emergency department visits was 1.65 (95% CI 1.05-2.57, P = 0.029) compared with the intention-to-treat group. For unplanned GP consultations the equivalent incident rate ratio was 2.00 (95% CI 1.18-3.58, P = 0.02). Benefit to cost ratio in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol groups was 20.72 and 21.85 respectively. Patient Health Related Quality of Life was significantly higher at 30-day (P < 0.001), 90-day (P < 0.001) and 180-day (P = 0.036) time points. A positive impact was also demonstrated in relation to patient beliefs about their medicines and medication adherence. Conclusion A pharmacist-led post-discharge medicines optimisation clinic was beneficial from a patient care and cost perspective.

Background Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Methods A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs. Results Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4–13] to 5 [0–11] vs 8 [3–13] to 7 [3–12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0–3] to 1 [0–2] vs 1 [0–2] to 1 [0–3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of − £229.0 (95% CI − 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI − 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017). Conclusion The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498