Community pharmacists’ perspectives on implementation of Medicines Use Review in Slovenia
- 79 Downloads
Background In December 2014 Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies defined procedures for Medicines Use Review (MUR) in Slovenia, together with an educational program and certification to ensure pharmacists’ competency to perform MUR. The first 15 pharmacists were certified in June 2015 and implemented the service in their practices. Objective This study aimed to understand the implementation of MUR from the perspectives of the first community pharmacists providing the service in practice. Methods A focus group with first MUR providers took place in February 2016, 6 months after the first pharmacists were certified to provide MUR service. Based on regional and institutional criteria ten pharmacists from the first certified group were chosen and invited to participate in guided discussion, where the development and assurance of competencies, the provision of the service in practice and the future of the service were addressed. The discussion was voice recorded with written consent obtained from all participants. Analysis was performed in NVivo 11 software with the use of inductive qualitative content analysis approach. Main outcome measure Views, challenges and opportunities for the Medicines Use Review service in Slovenia. Results Seven pharmacists attended the focus group, 5 from public pharmaceutical institution and 2 from concessionary pharmacies. Three main thematical categories were identified: quality assurance of MUR, different stakeholders’ perceptions of MUR and MURs’ management. Pharmacists’ broad knowledge in pharmacotherapy was emphasized as the basis of quality provision and main advantage in performing MUR in comparison with other healthcare professions. Recognisability of MUR among different stakeholders should be improved with comprehensive approach in marketing of the service. Positive patient feedback was reported, however persuading them to attend MUR presented a challenge. Better management of the service, especially in terms of work organization, would facilitate MUR provision. Conclusion Overall, positive experiences with implementation and provision were reported. To ensure MUR sustainability, the service needs to become more widely known and opportunities must be provided for continuing professional development of providing pharmacists.
KeywordsCommunity pharmacist Implementation research Medicines Use Review Perspectives Slovenia
Conflicts of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.Google Scholar
- 8.Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD008986.Google Scholar
- 10.Hersberger KE, Griese-Mammen N, Kos M, Horvat N, Messerli M, van Mil FJW. Position paper on the PCNE definition of medication review 2016. Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/149_Position_Paper_on_PCNE_Medication_Review_final.pdf (2016). Accessed 05 July 2017.
- 11.Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE). PCNE statement on medication review 2013. Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. http://www.pcne.org/upload/files/150_20160504_PCNE_MedRevtypes.pdf (2013). Accessed 05 July 2017.
- 12.Madjar B. Medicines use review [in Slovene]. Lekarnistvo (publication of Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies). 2013;5:63–66.Google Scholar
- 13.Madjar B, Pisk N, Knez L. Standard operating procedure for medicines use review [in Slovene]. [Standard operating procedur]. In press 2014.Google Scholar
- 14.Pharmacy Practice Act [in Slovene]. Slovenia. 2016. https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-listrs/vsebina/2016-01-3687?sop=2016-01-3687. Accessed 5 July 2017.
- 15.Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies. Educational program to gain competency for Medicines Use Review provision [in Slovene]. Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies. http://lzs.si/Portals/0/dokumenti-izobrazevanje/napoved%20izobrazevanja%20PUZ%20%202015%20za%20splet.pdf (2015). Accessed 05 July 2017.
- 16.Potocnik Bencic D, Bernik Golubic S. Activities in the performance of new pharamceutical cognitive services and education programm to gain competences for Medicines Use Review service. Lekarnistvo (publication of Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies). 2015;4:17–20.Google Scholar
- 22.Deticek A, Marđetko N, Horvat N, Kos M. Bright future for pharmacy practice in Slovenia. PCNE Newsl. 2016;11(4):3.Google Scholar
- 24.NVivo Pro software for qualitative data analysis v11. 11th ed: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2016.Google Scholar
- 26.Alexander A. MURs how the picture is developing. Pharm J. 2006;276:44–6.Google Scholar
- 28.Urban R, Rivers P, Morgan J. Perceptions of medicines use reviews—the views of community pharmacists within a West Yorkshire primary care trust. Pharm J. 2008;281:303–5.Google Scholar
- 29.Blenkinsopp A, Celino G, Bond C, Inch J. Medicines Use Review: the first year of a new community pharmacist service. Pharm J. 2007;278:218–23.Google Scholar
- 30.Cowley J, Gidman W, McGregor L, Andoh N. Exploring community pharmacists’ experience and opinions of Medication review services in England, Wales and Scotland. IJPP. 2010;18(Suppl 2):88.Google Scholar
- 33.Foulsham R, Saibi N, Nijjer S, Dhillon S. Ready, steady, pause and take stock! Time to reflect on medicines use review. Pharm J. 2006;276:414.Google Scholar
- 34.Rosenbloom EK, Graham J. A review of the implementation of medicines use reviews in Hertfordshire: findings of surveys conducted in 2006 and 2008. IJPP. 2008;16(Suppl 3):C48–9.Google Scholar
- 35.Bassi M, Wood K. Medicines use reviews: time for a new name? IJPP. 2009;17(Suppl 2):B5–6.Google Scholar
- 40.Marđetko N, Deticek A, Horvat N, Kos M. From Bismarck to Bismarck—healthcare system in Slovenia. PCNE Newsl. 2016;11(4):3.Google Scholar
- 41.Harding G, Wilcock M. What do pharmacists think of peer review of medicines use reviews? Pharm J. 2008;281:674.Google Scholar
- 43.Khideja N. Community pharmacists’ experience and perceptions of Medicines Use Review: initial and ongoing training of community pharmacists in the Black Country region—West Midlands. IJPP. 2009;17(Suppl 2):B60.Google Scholar
- 44.Connelly D. MURs: achieving the right balance. Pharm J. 2007;278:451.Google Scholar
- 45.Rantucci MJ. The medication management consultation. Pharmacists talking with patients: a guide to patient counseling. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 300.Google Scholar
- 46.Beardsley RS, Kimberlin CL, Tindall WN. Barriers to communication (chapter 4). Communication skills in pharmacy practice: a practical guide for students and practitioners. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. p. 256.Google Scholar
- 47.Van Mill J, De Boer W, Tromp TH. European barriers to the implementation of pharmaceutical care. IJPP. 2001;9:163–8.Google Scholar
- 48.McDonald R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Tickle M. The impact of incentives on the behaviour and performance of primary care professionals. Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation Programme. 2010.Google Scholar
- 49.Ewen D, Ingram M, MacAdam A. The uptake and perceptions of the medicines use review service by community pharmacists in England and Wales. IJPP. 2006;14(Suppl 2):B51–2.Google Scholar
- 50.Hall J, Smith I. Barriers to medicines use reviews: comparing the views of pharmacists and PCTs. IJPP. 2006;14(Suppl 2):B51–2.Google Scholar
- 51.Rules on the requirements to be met by the persons engaged in pharmacy activities [in Slovene]. https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2006-01-1688?sop=2006-01-1688 (2006). Accessed 05 July 2017.
- 52.Nabergoj Makovec U, Horvat N, Kos M. The golden 2016: advanced medication review finally reimbursed. PCNE Newsl. 2016;11(4):3.Google Scholar
- 54.Sabate E. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
- 56.Smith FJ. Chapter 10. Data collection: interviews and focus groups in conducting your pharmacy practice research project. 2nd ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2010.Google Scholar