Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews: A Retrospective Evaluation

Buss, Vera Helen; Shield, Alison; Kosari, Sam; Naunton, Mark

doi:10.1177/1060028018777547

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been shown that a general practice pharmacist is effective at improving the timeliness of completion of Home Medicine Reviews (HMR) [ 39 ]. A complete HMR service includes the service provided by a GP, an accredited pharmacist (a pharmacist who is licensed to conduct medication management reviews, including HMRs and Residential Medicine Management Reviews (RMMR)), and input from a multidisciplinary team from the time the patient is identified through to the implementation and ongoing monitoring of the medication management plan and any follow-up service(s) as required [ 72 ]. In 2012, Freeman et al reported that a general practice pharmacist completed HMRs in a shorter time (within 20 days) than an accredited pharmacist who is external to general practice (within 56 days) [ 39 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia. Methods This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures. Results Twenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists’ characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training. Conclusion This review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 Even though pharmacists' recommendations in HMR reports are evidence-based, 28 they are not reported in a standardized manner and may not routinely include the rationale or adequate evidence for recommendations. 29 GPs are more likely to accept pharmacist recommendations when the medication review is collaborative with discussions about the patient and specific findings, 27 as the program actually requires.…”

Section: Barriers To Hmrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacists’ and older adults’ perspectives on the benefits and barriers of Home Medicines Reviews – a qualitative study

Weir

Naganathan

Bonner

et al. 2019

J Health Serv Res Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Conducting a medication review is one way to optimize medications and support older people to reduce the burden of polypharmacy. In Australia, a service called a Home Medicines Review (HMR) is conducted by pharmacists as part of a nationally funded program. HMRs aim to identify and resolve problems associated with polypharmacy and improve collaboration between patient, pharmacist and general practitioner. The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of and barriers to HMRs from the perspective of older patients and pharmacists. Methods This qualitative study involved observations of HMRs ( n = 12) and telephone interviews with 32 participants including 11 accredited pharmacists, 17 older adults aged 65 years and above, with 4 of their companions, in Australia. The researcher observing took notes during the HMR and added more detail and reflections afterwards. Transcribed audio-recordings and observational notes were thematically coded using framework analysis. Results Older patients and their companions found the HMR useful and they appreciated the opportunity to learn more about their medicines. However, many did not understand the purpose of the HMR, had limited understanding about their medicines and some did not want to know more. Pharmacists found HMRs useful for identifying medication errors and improving adherence. They also reported barriers to effective HMRs relating to patients (resistance to the evaluation of their medicines, misunderstanding about the aim of the HMR) and GPs (limited information upon referral, and limited follow-up afterwards). Conclusions Older patients and pharmacists reported a range of benefits for HMRs in terms of optimizing medicines use. Barriers to effective HMR use need to be addressed, including gaps in inter-professional communication and factors related to patient involvement, such as limited medicines understanding and health literacy.

show abstract

“…Despite medication reviews being extensively utilised in Australia and in other parts of the world for over 20 years, current literature on medication reviews mainly focuses on the impact a pharmacist has on direct or surrogate health outcomes with varying results [17,21]. Surrogate outcomes include identifying medication-related problems and the recommendations made as a result, and the perceptions of consumers and GPs toward the medication review process [17,21,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Other retrospective studies have evaluated the types of medication-related problems identi ed, the prevalence of their identi cation, and the subsequent acceptance and implementation of medicines review pharmacist recommendations by the GPs [10,15,17,28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What types of information do pharmacists include in comprehensive medication management review reports? A qualitative content analysis

Al-Diery

Freeman

Page

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Comprehensive medication management reviews are an established intervention to identify medication-related problems, such as the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications, and under- and over-prescribing. However, the types of information included in written reports of comprehensive medication management reviews, beyond types of medication-related problems, are unknown. This study aimed to explore the types of information Australian pharmacists include in their written reports following comprehensive medication management reviews. Methods Australian consultant pharmacists were invited to upload their 10 most recent written reports of their domiciliary-based comprehensive medication management reviews. A random selection of the reports, stratified by each pharmacist, were included for qualitative content analysis. Results Seventy-two de-identified reports from eight consultant pharmacists were included for analysis. From the evaluated reports, four major categories of information were identified: 1) consumer details such as date of interview (n = 72, 100%) and medicine history (n = 70, 97%); 2) pharmacist assessment including assessment of the consumer (n = 70, 97%), medicines management (n = 68, 94%) and medicine-related issues (n = 60, 83%); 3) pharmacist recommendations, specifically pharmacological recommendations (n = 67, 93%); and 4) consumer-centred experiences such as perspective on medicines (n = 56, 78%). Reporting of consumer-centred experiences appeared most variably in the included reports, including consumer concerns (n = 38, 53%), willingness for change (n = 27, 38%), consumer preferences (n = 13, 18%), and consumer goals (n = 7, 10%). Conclusion Pharmacists within our study included a wide variety of information in their comprehensive medication management review reports. Aside from medication-related problems, pharmacists commonly provided a holistic assessment of the consumers they care for. However, despite the breadth of information included in a comprehensive medication management review report, our study suggests that there is wide variability across reports, which has the potential to impact consistent service delivery.

show abstract

Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews: A Retrospective Evaluation

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

Pharmacists’ and older adults’ perspectives on the benefits and barriers of Home Medicines Reviews – a qualitative study

What types of information do pharmacists include in comprehensive medication management review reports? A qualitative content analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About