This study identified some health outcomes that may be influenced by medication regimen complexity: hospitalization, hospital readmission, and medication adherence were more prevalent, showing a significant association between MRCI increase and these health outcomes.

BackgroundClinical Pharmacy Services (CPS) are a reality in many health systems around the world. However, there are few studies that discuss the facilitators and the strategies to implement CPS in healthcare systems. In this way, the objective of this study was to identify the facilitators and strategies involved in the CPS implementation process in some public health units in a metropolis in the Northeast Brazil.MethodsA qualitative study was carried out with health-system pharmacists and managers who experienced the implementation of CPS. Therefore, focus groups were conducted with pharmacists, and the interviews with the managers. The discussions were carried out through semi-structured scripts and were recorded in audio and videos, after the signature of the consent form. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed independently through content analysis, followed by consensus meetings between researchers.ResultsTwo focus groups were conducted, with an average of seven pharmacists per group, and five interviews with local health managers. Participants reported 39 facilitators who were related to the categories: local healthcare network, healthcare team, pharmacists and implementation process of the CPS. And 21 strategies attributed to the following categories: local healthcare network, pharmacists and implementation process of the CPS.ConclusionsThis study identified facilitators and strategies of the implementation of CPS. Most of the positive experiences were related to the clinical skills and proactive attitudes of pharmacists. These findings may support pharmacists and health managers to implement CPS in health systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3403-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rationale, aims, and objectives:Counselling is essential in drug dispensing, since it enables patients to receive and understand the information to correctly use their medicines. Although counselling is a quality indicator on drug dispensing, models that guide pharmacists in this practice are scarce. Thus, this study aimed to develop and validate the content of an instrument to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines. Method:A two-stage validation study was conducted out from February to October 2017. The first stage involved the development of the instrument, and the second involved content validation. Instrument development included the following three steps: (1) drafting of the prototype; (2) an academic brainstorming meeting, and (3) a pre-Delphi process. Content validation was then conducted using the Delphi technique. At this stage, 40 pharmacists who were experts in drug dispensing, were invited to assess the instrument. Consensus among experts was calculated according to the content validity index (CVI). Results:The development stage generated three versions of the instrument: the prototype, Version 1 (modified after brainstorming meeting), and Version 2 (modified after the pre-Delphi process). Version 2 underwent the content validation process, in which 29 pharmacists participated during the first round (rate of return: 72.5%) and 23 of these during the second round (rate of return: 79.31%). All items obtained CVI > 0.82 and were thus considered to be validated. The final instrument comprised three components: suggestions for questions, dispensing process reasoning, and suggestions for counselling, and other conduct in 11 stages, each representing a step in the clinical reasoning process. Conclusions:An instrument was developed to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines, suggesting main questions, counselling, and conduct to be taken by pharmacists, and its content validity was verified.

Objective:To measure undergraduate pharmacy and medical students’ collaborative attitudes regarding Pharmacist–Physician collaboration.Methods:A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 in Northeast Brazil. Pharmacy and medical students from the first and the last year of courses were invited to complete Portuguese version of Scale of Attitudes Toward Pharmacist-Physician Collaboration (SATP2C). Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (22 version). Differences were considered significant when p<0.05.Results:Three hundred seventy students completed the SATP2C. Overall, the students had positive attitudes towards physician-pharmacist collaboration. There was no significant correlation between age and score (p=0.79). Women showed a more positive collaborative attitude than men (53.1, SD=6.8 vs. 55.1, SD=6.3). Pharmacy students had a higher score than medical students (57.5, SD=4.7, vs. 51.1, SD=6.4). The first-year medical students had a higher score than last-year medical students (52.3, SD=6.0 vs. 49.5, SD=6.6; p<0.007). There was no significant difference in the attitudes between the first and last year pharmacy students (p<0.007).Conclusions:Pharmacy and medical students showed positive attitudes towards physician-pharmacist collaboration. However, pharmacy students presented more collaborative attitudes than medical ones. Additionally, the first-year medical students had more collaborative attitudes than last-year medical students. Studies should be conducted to provide recommendations to improve interprofessional education efforts to further enhance the positive attitudes toward physician-pharmacist collaboration.

Background: Current evidence of the influence of the medication regimen complexity (MRC) on the patients’ clinical outcomes are not conclusive. Objective: To systematically and analytically assess the association between MRC measured by the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) and clinical outcomes. Methods: A search was carried out in the databases Cochrane Library, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Open Thesis, and Web of Science to identify studies evaluating the association between MRC and clinical outcomes that were published from January 1, 2004, to April 2, 2018. The search terms included outcome assessment, drug therapy, and medication regimen complexity index and their synonyms in different combinations for case-control and cohort studies that used the MRCI to measure MRC and related the MRCI with clinical outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and mean differences (WMDs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis showed that MRC is associated with the following clinical outcomes: hospitalization (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.27; I2 = 0%) in cohort studies, hospital readmissions (WMD = 7.72; 95% CI = 1.19 to 14.25; I2 = 84%) in case-control studies, and medication nonadherence (adjusted OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.07; I2 = 0%) in cohort studies. Conclusion and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis gathered relevant scientific evidence and quantified the combined estimates to show the association of MRC with clinical outcomes: hospitalization, hospital readmission, and medication adherence.

Summary What is known and objective Qualified dispensing is fundamental for the promotion of the rational use of medicines. Documentation is an indicator of quality and one of the essential steps in the care process. However, in Brazil, there are no models of clinical documentation applicable to dispensing practices. Thus, the objective of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to document the dispensing process of prescribed medicines. Methods A methodological development study was carried out from February 2017 to October 2017 in two stages, which were (i) the development of the instrument and (ii) content validation of the proposed instrument. The development phase comprised three stages, which were (i) the elaboration of the prototype based on a previously performed systematic review, (ii) academic brainstorming and (iii) a pre‐Delphi consensus. The content validation process was performed using the Delphi technique. The instrument was sent to 40 experts with experience in dispensing, and the consensus among them was calculated using the content validity index (CVI). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee, and all participants signed an informed consent document detailing the terms of the study. Results In the development stage, three versions of the instrument were generated, which were the prototype, version 1 (changed after academic brainstorming) and version 2 (changed after the pre‐Delphi). In the content validation process of version 2 of the instrument, 23 experts returned their evaluation in the first round of the Delphi process and 17 in the second. All the items obtained a CVI >0.83, which resulted in the validation of the instrument. The final instrument comprised the following sections: general information, the identification of technical and legal problems of prescriptions, the conduct for the resolution of the technical and legal problems of prescriptions, medication dispensed, suspected drug‐related problems, verbal guidance, written guidance, referral and the referral result. What is new and conclusion The developed and validated instrument presents the main variables that should be documented during the dispensing process.

Background Drug dispensing is a clinical pharmacy service that promotes access to medicines and their rational use. However, there is a lack of evidence for the impact of drug dispensing on patients’ health outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the influence of drug dispensing on the clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes of patients attending community pharmacies. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in April 2021 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Open Thesis. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles according to the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the literature was synthesized narratively. Results We retrieved 3,685 articles and included nine studies that presented 13 different outcomes. Regarding the design, they were cross-sectional (n = 4), randomized clinical trials (n = 4), and quasi-experimental (n = 1). A positive influence of drug dispensing on health outcomes was demonstrated through six clinical, four humanistic and three economic outcomes. Eight studies (88,9 %) used intermediate outcomes. The assessment of methodological quality was characterized by a lack of clarity and/or lack of information in primary studies. Conclusions Most articles included in this review reported a positive influence of drug dispensing performed by community pharmacists on patients’ health outcomes. The findings of this study may be of interest to patients, pharmacists, decision makers, and healthcare systems, since they may contribute to evidence-based decision-making, strengthening the contribution of community pharmacists to health care. Trial registration Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020191701.

SUMMARYWhat is known: Documentation is a process indicator utilized to evaluate quality clinical pharmacist services. In this framework, documentation of dispensing, besides supporting patient care, allows evaluation of the impact of counselling. Objective: To identify and assess studies of documentation by pharmacists in the dispensing process. Method: A systematic review was carried out according to the following steps: (i) identification of studies in the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Lilacs, using the descriptors 'counselling', 'dispensing', 'community pharmacy services', 'pharmacies' and 'pharmacists' in different combinations; (ii) evaluation of studies, in which the title, abstract and full text of the studies, and the evaluation of the methodological quality of the selected studies were analysed. Results: In total, 26 articles met the specific criteria. Few studies addressed documentation as part of the dispensing working process (3), and 16 articles reported documentation using nonelectronic systems. The main variables documented were patient information, drug therapy problems and clinical interventions. Furthermore, 20 studies showed the effects of documentation in the dispensing process and 23 studies included statistical evidence. Eight articles met between 42% and 75% of the 28 items recommended by the STROBE initiative, and two articles met approximately 60% of the 36 items recommended by the CONSORT initiative.