Large scale implementation of clinical medication reviews in Dutch community pharmacies: drug-related problems and interventions
- 575 Downloads
Research on the benefits of clinical medication reviews (CMRs) performed by pharmacists has been conducted mostly in controlled settings and has been widely published. Less is known of the effects after large scale implementation in community pharmacies. An online CMR tool enabled the systematic registration of drug-related problems (DRPs) and implemented interventions derived from CMRs in daily practice.
To describe the effects of CMRs on pharmacy practice after large-scale implementation in the Netherlands.
268 community pharmacies. Pharmacists were trained on CMRs with a patient centred approach.
Retrospective analyses of DRPs, pharmacists’ proposals and implemented interventions recorded between January 1st and September 1st 2012.
Main outcome measure
Frequencies of DRPs, intervention proposals, implemented interventions, and drugs involved.
4,579 CMRs were analysed. On average 2.9 (SD 2.1) DRPs per review were identified. 4,123 (31 %) of the DRPs led to medication changes. Stopping a drug (16 %) was more frequent than starting a drug (8.1 %). Drugs related to cardiovascular risk management, diabetes and osteoporosis were most frequently involved.
This study is the largest analysis of pharmacists-initiated CMRs in the Netherlands to date. The findings demonstrate the potential to reduce medication-related errors through pharmacist involvements in complex pharmacotherapy and the positive impact on the quality of drug therapy through making necessary medication changes. The data also support the need for large-scale implementation of pharmacists-initiated CMRs in the presence of proper training programmes.
KeywordsClinical medication review Drug-related problems Pharmaceutical care Pharmacy practice Pharmacist The Netherlands
The authors would like to thank all pharmacists for their efforts in recording all outcomes in the SAMRT. Also, we would like to thank all the staff from Stevenshof Institute for Research, Utrecht University and Service Apotheek who have contributed to this study. Finally, we would like to thank David Preece for his valuable input as a native speaker.
The study was funded by Nederlandse Service Apotheek Beheer BV (SA).
Conflicts of interest
PH was employed by SA. SA provided the raw data and objective information regarding the SAMRT, but both PH and SA were not involved in the selection and the interpretation of the results for this manuscript. Other authors have no competing interests.
- 1.FIP Working Group on Collaborative Practice. FIP reference paper collaborative practice. Den Haag: International Pharmaceutical Federation; 2009. http://www.fip.org/www/uploads/database_file.php?id=319&table_id=; accessed at: 9-12-2013.
- 2.Expertgroep Medicatieveiligheid [Expert Group Medication Safety]. HARM-WRESTLING. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport [Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport]; 2009. http://www.knmp.nl/downloads/medicijnen-zorgverlening/medicatieveiligheid/harmwrestlingrapportdefnov2009.pdf. Accessed at: 9 dec 2013.
- 4.Task Force on Medicines Partnership and The National Collaborative Medicines Management Services Programme. Room for review. A guide to medication review: the agenda for patients, practitioners and managers. 1st ed. London: Medicines Partnership; 2002. ISBN 0-9544028-0-4.Google Scholar
- 11.Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap ism andere beroepsorganisaties/instanties/verenigingen [Dutch College of General Practitioners in collaboration with other professional organisations]. Multidisciplinaire Richtlijn Polyfarmacie bij ouderen, 2012 [Multidisciplinary Guideline Polypharmacy in Elderly]. NHG 2012. https://www.nhg.org/sites/default/files/content/nhg_org/uploads/polyfarmacie_bij_ouderen.pdf; accessed at: 9-12-2013.
- 21.Stichting Farmaceutische Kengetallen [Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics]. Data en feiten 2013 [Data and facts 2013]. Den Haag: SFK; 2012. ISBN 978-90-817780-1-5.Google Scholar
- 22.Gezondheidsraad [Health Council of the Netherlands]. Evaluatie van de voedingsnormen voor vitamine D [Evaluation of the dietary reference values for vitamin D]. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2012. 150 p. Report No.: 2012/15. ISBN 978-90-5549-931-1.Google Scholar