Improving the Well-Being of Elderly Patients via Community Pharmacy-Based Provision of Pharmaceutical Care
- 526 Downloads
This study aimed to measure the outcomes of a harmonised, structured pharmaceutical care programme provided to elderly patients (≥65 years of age) by community pharmacists in a multicentre international study performed in 7 European countries.
Design and setting
The study was a randomised, controlled, longitudinal, clinical trial with repeated measures performed over an 18-month period. A total of 104 intervention and 86 control pharmacy sites participated in the research and 1290 intervention patients and 1164 control patients were recruited into the study.
Main outcome measures and results
A general decline in health-related quality of life over time was observed in the pooled data; however, significant improvements were achieved in patients involved in the pharmaceutical care programme in some countries. Intervention patients reported better control of their medical conditions as a result of the study and cost savings associated with pharmaceutical care provision were observed in most countries. The new structured service was well accepted by intervention patients and patient satisfaction with the services improved during the study. The pharmacists involved in providing pharmaceutical care had a positive opinion on the new approach, as did the majority of general practitioners surveyed. The positive effects appear to have been achieved via social and psychosocial aspects of the intervention, such as the increased support provided by community pharmacists, rather than via biomedical mechanisms.
This study is the first large-scale, multicentre study to investigate the effects of pharmaceutical care provision by community pharmacists to elderly patients. Future research methodology and implementation will be informed by the experience gained from this challenging trial.
KeywordsIntervention Patient Control Patient Community Pharmacy Community Pharmacist Pharmaceutical Care
We acknowledge the European Commission, under the BIOMED 2 programme for medical research, for funding the coordination of the multicentre study. The following groups are also thanked for their financial and/or logistical support in the respective countries: Northern Pharmacies Trust (Northern Ireland); Apotekerfonden of 1991, The Association of Danish Pharmacists Development Fund, Danish Pharmacy Assistants Association (Denmark); Administração Regional de Saúde do Centro, Departmento de Estudos e Planeamento da Saúde — Direccção Geral da Saúde and Instituto Nacional da Farmácia e do Medicamento, Departments of the Health Ministry (Portugal); KNMP — The Royal Dutch Association for the Advancement of Pharmacy, OPG, Brocacef and Interpharm (wholesale companies) and the Stichting Pharmaceutical Care (Pharmaceutical Care Foundation) [The Netherlands]; The Pharmacoepidemiology Fund (Republic of Ireland); Apotekerkammer Westfalen-Lippe, Arz Haan and ABDATA Eschborn (Germany); and Apoteket AB (National Pharmacy Company) and the National Board of Health and Welfare (Sweden).
Thanks are also due to all community pharmacists, other primary healthcare staff and the patients who participated in the research project in their respective countries. We would like to acknowledge the statistical support of Dr Gordon Cran and Dr Derrick Bennett.
- 1.Anon. World-wide developments in pharmaceutical care. Proceedings from the Joint International Symposium on Pharmaceutical Care. Pharm J 1998; 260: 563–8Google Scholar
- 4.Holford DA, Smith S. Improving the quality of outcomes research involving pharmaceutical services. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1434–42Google Scholar
- 5.Maguire TA. Pharmaceutical care — who pays? Pharm J 1995; 254: 642Google Scholar
- 8.Grainger-Rousseau TJ, McElnay JC. A model for community pharmacy involvement with general practitioners in the management of asthmatic patients. J App Ther 1996; 1: 145–61Google Scholar
- 9.Herborg H, Søndergaard B, Frokjaer B, et al. Pharmaceutical care value proved. Int Pharm J 1996; 10: 167–8Google Scholar
- 11.Park JJ, Kelly P, Carter BL, et al. Comprehensive pharmaceutical care in the chain setting. J Am Pharm Assoc 1996; 36: 443–51Google Scholar
- 16.Burgess J, White GN. A PC project with the elderly. Pharmacy Practice 1996; 12: 61–9Google Scholar
- 19.Stewart RB. Polypharmacy in the elderly: a fait accompli? Ann Pharmacother 1990; 24: 321–3Google Scholar
- 20.Weedle P, Parish P. Pharmaceutical care of the elderly: 1. The extent of drug use in the elderly. Br J Pharm Pract 1984; 6: 352–8Google Scholar
- 22.Wade WE, Cobb HH, Cooper JW. Drug-related problems in a multiple site ambulatory geriatric population. J Ger Drug Ther 1986; 1: 67–79Google Scholar
- 23.Berardo DH, Kimberlin CL, McKenzie LC, et al. Community pharmacists’ documentation of interventions on drug-related problems of elderly patients. J Soc Admin Pharm 1994; 11: 182–93Google Scholar
- 24.Schmader K, Hanlon JT, Weinberger M, et al. Appropriateness of medication prescribing in ambulatory elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994; 42: 1092–8Google Scholar
- 35.Asicone FJ, Shimp LA, Opdycke RAL. Research in pharmaceutical care: experience from the focused drug therapy review program. Am J Pharm Educ 1992; 56: 441–7Google Scholar
- 36.Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993Google Scholar
- 45.Larson LN, MacKeigan LD. Further validation of an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with pharmacy services. J Pharm Mark Manage 1994; 8: 125–39Google Scholar
- 47.Ried LD, Wang F, Young H, et al. Patients’ satisfaction and their perception of the pharmacist. J Am Pharm Assoc 1999; 39: 835–42Google Scholar
- 50.Norwood GJ, Sleath BL, Caiola SM, et al. Costs of implementing pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies. J Am Pharm Assoc 1998; 38: 755–61Google Scholar
- 55.Maller W. Continuous quality improvement of drug use in a local area — an interdisciplinary pilot project in the primary health care sector in Vejen county [thesis]. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 1998Google Scholar
- 58.Nau DP, Ried LD, Lipowski EE, et al. Patients’ perceptions of the benefits of pharmaceutical care. J Am Pharm Assoc 2000; 40: 36–40Google Scholar
- 59.van Mil JWF, editor. International working conference on outcomes measurement in pharmaceutical care. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Pharmaceutical Care Network in Europe; 1999 Jan 26–29; Pharmakon: Hillerod, Denmark, 1999Google Scholar
- 60.van Mil JWF, Tromp TFJ. The Pharmaceutical Care Network in Europe (PCNE). Int Pharm J 1997; 11: 10–11Google Scholar
- 61.Odedina FT, Segal R, Hepler CD. Providing pharmaceutical care in community practice: differences between providers and non-providers of pharmaceutical care. J Soc Admin Pharm 1995; 12: 170–80Google Scholar
- 62.Bell HB, McElnay JC, Hughes CM, et al. A qualitative investigation of the attitudes and opinions of community pharmacists to pharmaceutical care. J Admin Soc Pharm 1998; 15: 284–95Google Scholar
- 63.Ellerby DA, Williams A, Winfield AJ. The level of interest in pharmacy practice research among community pharmacists. Pharm J 1993; 251: 321–2Google Scholar