Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 550–558 | Cite as

Pharmaceutical care for patients with ischemic stroke: improving the patients quality of life

  • Carina HohmannEmail author
  • Jürgen M. Klotz
  • Roland Radziwill
  • Andreas H. Jacobs
  • Thomas Kissel


Objectives To improve patients health-related quality of life (HQL) after transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke; to guarantee an effective secondary prevention; to increase the patient’s satisfaction with recommendations regarding their medication by pharmacists. Setting Stroke Unit, neurological ward at the Klinikum Fulda, rehabilitation hospitals and community-based pharmacies in the region of Fulda, Germany. Method Patients with TIA or ischemic stroke were included. The patients were assigned to an intervention group (IG) or a control group (CG). The individual assignment of patients to IG or CG was based on the type of the local pharmacy to which patients belong. Community-based pharmacies either delivered standard care (CG) or provided additional intensified pharmaceutical care (PC; IG). Pharmacies delivering PC belong to a pre-existing “Quality Assurance Working Group” (QAWG). To evaluate the patient’s HQL, the Short Form-36 (SF-36) was used at study entry in hospital and at 12 months. The secondary prevention was documented at study entry in hospital and at 12 months. The patients’ satisfaction was measured by a questionnaire at the end of the study. Main outcome measures Patients’ HQL; secondary prevention; patients’ satisfaction with recommendations of the pharmacists with regards to their medication. Results Out of 1316 patients screened for participation in this study, 255 were recruited with 90/255 patients assigned to the IG and 165/255 patients assigned to the CG. During the study, the HQL of the patients in the IG did not change significantly. A significant decrease in the HQL was observed for the CG in 7/8 subscales and in both summary measures of the SF-36. After 12 months, 85.3% of the patients in the IG and 86.3% of the patients in the CG were treated with antiplatelet drugs or oral anticoagulants in accordance to treatment guidelines. Patients in the IG were significantly more satisfied with the individualized recommendations of the pharmacists than patients in the CG. Conclusion Our findings indicate that an intensified PC of patients after ischemic stroke by dedicated pharmacists may have a positive impact on HQL and patients’ satisfaction. PC in this study had no impact on adherence to secondary prevention medication.


Germany Health-related quality of life Patient satisfaction Pharmaceutical Care Seamless Care Secondary prevention Stroke 



Control group


German Neurological Society


Drug-related problems


German Stroke Society


Health-related quality of life


Intervention group


Mental component summary score


Magnetic resonance imaging


Pharmaceutical care


Physical component summary score


Short Form-36


Transient ischemic attack



We would like to thank the participating patients, community pharmacists and physicians who supported our study with their commitment.


The present study was funded by the Förderinitiative Pharmazeutische Betreuung e.V., Berlin and the Dr. August und Dr. Anni Lesmüller Stiftung, Munich, Germany.

Conflict of interests statement



  1. 1.
    Kolominsky-Rabas P, Sarti C, Heuschmann P, Graf C, Siemonsen S, Neudoerfer B, et al. A prospective community-based study of stroke in Germany—the Erlangen stroke project (ESPro)—incidence and case fatality at 1, 3 and 12 months. Stroke. 1998;29(12):2501–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manolio TA, Kronmal RA, Burke GL, O’Leary DH, Price TH. Short-term predictors of incident stroke in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health study. Stroke. 1996;27(9):1479–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grau AJ, Weimar C, Buggle F, Heinrich A, Goertler M, Neumaier S, et al. Risk factors, outcome and treatment in subtypes of ischemic stroke: the German Stroke Data Bank. Stroke. 2001;32(11):2559–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albers GW, Easton JD, Sacco RL, Teal P. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke. Chest 1998;114(5):683S–98S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002;324(7329):71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie: Primär- und Sekundärprävention der zerebralen Ischämie [German Neurological Society: Primary and secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia] (updated January 2006). Accessed 10 July 2008.
  7. 7.
    MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, Collins R, Sorlie P, Neaton J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet. 1990;335(8692):765–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lawes CMM, Bennett DA, Feigin VL, Rodgers A. Blood pressure and stroke—an overview of published reviews. Stroke. 2004;35(3):776–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz M, Morck H, Braun R. Neues Apothekenprofil: good pharmacy practice und pharmaceutical care [New pharmacy profile: good pharmacy practice and pharmaceutical care]. Pharm Ztg. 1993;138:3191–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eickhoff C, Schulz M. Pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies: practice and research in Germany. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(4):729–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27(10):1812–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, Thompson AJ. Quality of life measurement after stroke: uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke. 2002;33(5):1348–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    German Neurological Society and the German Stroke Society: Primary and secondary prevention of cerebral ischaemia (updated September 2005). Accessed 10 July 2008.
  17. 17.
    Gourley GK, Gourley DR, La Monica Rigolosi E, Reed P, Solomon DK, Washington E. Development and validation of the pharmaceutical care satisfaction questionnaire. Am J Manag Care. 2001;7(5):461–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winterstein A. Pharmaceutical care—Grundlagen und Methoden zur Nutzenevaluation dargestellt am Beispiel einer experimentellen Studie zur pharmazeutischen Betreuung älterer multimorbider Patienten [Pharmaceutical care—basics and methods for evaluating benefits illustrated in an experimental study on the pharmaceutical care of elderly patients]. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulz M, Verheyen F, Mühlig S, Müller JM, Mühlbauer K, Knop-Schneickert E, et al. Pharmaceutical Care Services for asthma patients: a controlled intervention study. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;41(6):668–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mangiapane S, Schulz M, Muhlig S, Ihle P, Schubert I, Waldmann H. Community pharmacy-based pharmaceutical care for asthma patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(11):1817–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graesel E, Biehler J, Schmidt R, Schupp W. Intensification of the transition between inpatient neurological rehabilitation and home care of stroke patients. Controlled clinical trial with follow-up assessment six months after discharge. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(7):725–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Volume CI, Farris KB, Kassam R, Cox CE, Cave A. Pharmaceutical care research and education project: patient outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001;41(3):411–20.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petty DR, Zermansky AG, Raynor DK, Vail A, Lowe CJ, Freemantle N, et al. “No thank you”: why elderly patients declined to participate in a research study. Pharm World Sci. 2001;23(1):22–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carina Hohmann
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jürgen M. Klotz
    • 2
  • Roland Radziwill
    • 1
  • Andreas H. Jacobs
    • 2
  • Thomas Kissel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy and Patient CounsellingKlinikum Fulda gAGFuldaGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyKlinikum Fulda gAGFuldaGermany
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and BiopharmacyPhilipps University of MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations