Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 1180–1188 | Cite as

Community pharmacists’ perspectives on implementation of Medicines Use Review in Slovenia

  • Urska Nabergoj Makovec
  • Mitja Kos
  • Nina PiskEmail author
Research Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Community pharmacist Implementation research Medicines Use Review Perspectives Slovenia 

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47(3):533–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allemann SS, van Mil FJW, Botermann L, Berger K, Griese N, Hersberger KE. Pharmaceutical care: the PCNE definition 2013. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(3):544–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts AS, Benrimoj SI, Chen TF, Williams KA, Aslani P. Practice change in community pharmacy: quantification of facilitators. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(6):861–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saez-Benito L, Fernandez-Llimos F, Feletto E, Gastelurrutia MA, Martinez-Martinez F, Benrimoj SI. Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of cognitive pharmaceutical services for aged patients. Age Ageing. 2013;42(4):442–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jokanovic N, Tan EC, Sudhakaran S, Kirkpatrick CM, Dooley MJ, Ryan-Atwood TE, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: an overview of systematic reviews. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(4):661–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatah E, Braund R, Tordoff J, Duffull SB. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacist-led fee-for-services medication review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(1):102–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holland R, Desborough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK. Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(3):303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD008986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4):573–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 12.
    Madjar B. Medicines use review [in Slovene]. Lekarnistvo (publication of Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies). 2013;5:63–66.Google Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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
  17. 17.
    Hughes CM, Cadogan CA, Ryan CA. Development of a pharmacy practice intervention: lessons from the literature. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):601–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roberts AS, Benrimoj SI, Chen TF, Williams KA, Hopp TR, Aslani P. Understanding practice change in community pharmacy: a qualitative study in Australia. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2005;1(4):546–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA. 2000;284(3):357–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deticek A, Marđetko N, Horvat N, Kos M. Bright future for pharmacy practice in Slovenia. PCNE Newsl. 2016;11(4):3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Priest H, Roberts P, Woods L. An overview of three different approaches to the interpretation of qualitative data. Part 1: theoretical issues. Nurse Res. 2002;10(1):30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    NVivo Pro software for qualitative data analysis v11. 11th ed: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alexander A. MURs how the picture is developing. Pharm J. 2006;276:44–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bradley F, Wagner AC, Elvey R, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Determinants of the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs) by community pharmacies in England: a multi-method study. Health Policy. 2008;88(2–3):258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 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
  31. 31.
    Latif A, Boardman H. Community pharmacists’ attitudes towards medicines use reviews and factors affecting the numbers performed. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(5):536–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Latif A, Pollock K, Boardman HF. Medicines use reviews: a potential resource or lost opportunity for general practice? BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. 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. 35.
    Bassi M, Wood K. Medicines use reviews: time for a new name? IJPP. 2009;17(Suppl 2):B5–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McDonald R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Sanders C, Ashcroft D. Professional status in a changing world: the case of Medicines Use Reviews in English community pharmacy. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71:451–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Doucette WR, Nevins JC, Gaither C, Kreling DH, Mott DA, Pedersen CA, et al. Organizational factors influencing pharmacy practice change. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(4):274–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 41.
    Harding G, Wilcock M. What do pharmacists think of peer review of medicines use reviews? Pharm J. 2008;281:674.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Harding G, Wilcock M. Community pharmacists’ perceptions of medicines use reviews and quality assurance by peer review. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:381–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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. 44.
    Connelly D. MURs: achieving the right balance. Pharm J. 2007;278:451.Google Scholar
  45. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 52.
    Nabergoj Makovec U, Horvat N, Kos M. The golden 2016: advanced medication review finally reimbursed. PCNE Newsl. 2016;11(4):3.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hajjar E, Cafiero A, Hanlon J. Polypharmacy in elderly patients. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2007;5(4):345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sabate E. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lounsbery J, Green C, Bennett M, Pedersen C. Evaluation of pharmacists’ barriers to the implementation of medication therapy management services. JAPhA. 2009;49:51–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 57.
    Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Pharmacy, Chair of Social PharmacyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Gorenjske lekarneKranjSlovenia

Personalised recommendations