We set out to determine the effects of pharmacist-led medication review in older people by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis covering 11 electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials in any setting, concerning older people (mean age > 60 years), were considered, aimed at optimizing drug regimens and improving patient outcomes. Our primary outcome was emergency hospital admission (all cause). Secondary outcomes were mortality and numbers of drugs prescribed. We also recorded data on drug knowledge, adherence and adverse drug reactions. We retrieved 32 studies which fitted the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 17 trials revealed no significant effect on all-cause admission, relative risk (RR) of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.14, P = 0.92], with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 49.5, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis of mortality data from 22 trials found no significant benefit, with a RR of mortality of 0.96 (95% CI 0.82, 1.13, P = 0.62), with no heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Pharmacist-led medication review may slightly decrease numbers of drugs prescribed (weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI -0.89, -0.07), but significant heterogeneity was found (I 2 = 85.9%, P < 0.001). Results for additional outcomes could not be pooled, but suggested that interventions could improve knowledge and adherence. Pharmacist-led medication review interventions do not have any effect on reducing mortality or hospital admission in older people, and can not be assumed to provide substantial clinical benefit. Such interventions may improve drug knowledge and adherence, but there are insufficient data to know whether quality of life is improved.

No abstract

The role of an innovative Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP) for care homes to optimise medications has not been examined. We explored stakeholders’ views on issues and barriers that the PIP might address to inform a service specification for the PIP intervention in older people's care homes. Focus groups ( n = 72 participants) and semi‐structured interviews ( n = 13) undertaken in 2015 across four sites in the United Kingdom captured the views of doctors, pharmacists, care‐home managers and staff, residents and relatives. Stakeholders identified their expectations of what service should be provided by PIPs, what might affect their support for the role, and barriers and enablers to providing the service. Transcripts were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify key components, which were reviewed by stakeholders in 2016. A PIP service was envisaged offering benefits for residents, care homes and doctors but stakeholders raised challenges including agreement on areas where PIPs might prescribe, contextual barriers in chronic disease management, PIPs’ knowledge of older people's medicine, and implementation barriers in integrated team‐working and ensuring role clarity. Introducing a PIP was welcomed in principle but conditional on: a clearly defined PIP role communicated to stakeholders; collaboration across doctors, PIPs and care‐home staff; dialogue about developing the service with residents and relatives, based on trust and effective communication. To embed a PIP service within increasingly complex care‐homes provision, the overarching theme from this research was that everyone must “understand each other's systems”.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the infection, COVID-19, affected people's life worldwide. This pandemic forced both pharmacy faculty and students to adapt to a new teaching and learning environment not only in the United States but around the globe. Pharmacy educators faced common challenges and opportunities to make classroom learning and experiences, as well as student assessments, into a remote or online format. Unique approaches taken to overcome difficulties in various countries showed pharmacy faculty's resilience to continue providing education to students. The pandemic also shed light on areas needing improvement for pharmacy educators to work on in the future.