IntroductionMedication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.AimTo examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.MethodsA literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).ConclusionThere is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

Pharmacists now face the biggest challenges in the history of the profession: the use of digital technologies in pharmacy practice and education and the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. Worldwide, pharmaceutical care and pharmacy education via digital technologies have significantly increased and will be incorporated into patient care and the teaching–learning process, respectively. Thus, in this new era of pharmacy practice and education, curricula should promote the development of specific competencies for the cognitive, conscious, and effective use of digital tools. This requires the training of “disruptive” educators, who are capable of using teaching–learning methods adapted to the digital environment and educational processes suitable for stimulating the use of effective disruptive technologies. This commentary argues that the pharmacy profession can no longer wait for the slow integration of digital technologies into pharmacy practice and education.

No abstract

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.

Background. In recent years, the use of digital serious games in the education of healthcare students and professionals has been frequent. However, there are no high-level evidence studies focused on the effect of this tool in the development of patient care-related competencies in pharmacy education. Aim. To assess the effect of digital serious games on learning about patient care in pharmacy education. Methods. The Cochrane Library, ERIC, Embase, IPA, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify relevant studies published up to October 2, 2018. Standardized and non-standardized terms including “games,” “serious games,” “pharmacy education,” “pharmacists,” and “pharmacy students” were used as search terms. The quality of the studies was assessed using validated tools. Results and Discussion. Of the 1,521 studies reviewed, seven met the eligibility criteria. Three studies were performed in the United States (42.85%). The most-frequent design studies were randomized controlled studies (n = 3; 42.85%). The number of participants ranged between 6 and 354. In most cases, game scenarios were based on simulations in which users performed the role of the pharmacist (n = 5; 71.42%). The predominant primary outcome was attitudes (n = 5; 71.42%) related to patient care. Only one study (14.27%) demonstrated significant improvements in the assessed primary outcomes. The methodology of the included studies lacked robustness. Conclusion. The effect of learning technological tools on patient care-related competencies was not significant in most of the included studies. Future studies must provide high-quality, integrated-manner evidence on the effect of digital serious games in pharmacy education (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) to facilitate the transfer of learning to real-life scenarios and changes in organizational practices.