Development of a model of medication review for use in clinical practice: Bristol medication review model

Managing polypharmacy through medication review tools - pros and cons

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a common occurrence in elderly patients, resulting in increased adverse drug reactions, nonadherence, and increased healthcare costs. Medication review and deprescribing are the primary strategies described in the literature for dealing with problematic polypharmacy. To effectively carry out the medication review, various tools have been developed. These tools can support medication review in a variety of ways. Some tools include a list of medications requiring detailed attention, while others guide medical professionals with principles and algorithms for reviewing and prescribing medicines. A third category of tools focuses on tracking and identifying symptoms that may be due to drug-related problems.

Perspectives on 3D printed personalized medicines for pediatrics

In recent years, the rapid advancement of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has yielded distinct benefits across various sectors, including pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry has particularly experienced advantages from the utilization of 3D-printed medications, which have invigorated the development of tailored drug formulations. The approval of 3D-printed drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has significantly propelled personalized drug delivery. Additionally, 3D printing technology can accommodate the precise requirements of pediatric drug dosages and the complexities of multiple drug combinations. This review specifically concentrates on the application of 3D printing technology in pediatric preparations, encompassing a broad spectrum of uses and refined pediatric formulations. It compiles and evaluates the fundamental principles associated with the application of 3D printing technology in pediatric preparations, including its merits and demerits, and anticipates its future progression. The objective is to furnish theoretical underpinning for 3D printing technology to facilitate personalized drug delivery in pediatrics and to advocate for its implementation in clinical settings.

Pharmacist-Led Interventions for Medication Adherence in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are routinely prescribed complex medication regimes. Medication reconciliation, medicine reviews, patient counselling and disease state and medication education are all key pharmacist-led interventions, which can improve medication adherence in patients with CKD.

AIM

To characterize peer reviewed literature on the role of pharmacists in supporting medication adherence of patients with chronic kidney disease and highlight the impact they might have in the health outcomes for patients.

METHOD

This review was performed in accordance with the Scoping Review Framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Guide. Four electronic databases were searched (Medline (Ovid), Emcare, Scopus and Web of Science) for all relevant literature published up until November 2022. A total of 32 studies were reviewed against an exclusion and inclusion criteria, with findings from each study categorized into barriers, interventions, perceptions, financial implications and outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight eligible studies were identified, where pharmacists' interventions including medication reconciliation, medicine reviews, patient counselling and disease state and medication education, were all reported to have a positive effect on medication adherence. Although pharmacy services in chronic kidney disease were acceptable to patients and pharmacists, these services were under-utilized and limited by logistical constraints, including staffing shortages and time limitations. Patient education supplemented with education tools describing disease states and medications was reported to increase patient adherence to medication regimes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-led interventions play an integral role in improving medication adherence in patients with chronic kidney disease, with their inclusion in renal care settings having the potential to improve outcomes for patients.

Key elements in the quality assessment of a type 3 medication review

Background: Medication reviews are a structured evaluation of a patient's pharmacotherapy with the aim of optimizing medicines use and improving health outcomes. This entails detecting drug related problems and recommending interventions. A high level of quality is essential for the successful implementation of this service in community pharmacies but currently there is no instrument or tool to assess that overall quality. Aim: This study investigated the development of quality criteria of type 3 medication reviews (MR3s). Methods: After surveying the literature, an electronic questionnaire was developed to gather information about quality criteria for MR3. This survey, in Dutch, was distributed electronically. Four groups were queried: 1) pharmacists, mainly working in the Netherlands, involved in practice research and contacted through the PRISMA (Practice Research In Collaboration With Pharmacists) foundation, 2) Belgian pharmacy academics and pharmacists active in professional associations (APA), 3) Belgian pharmacists trained in medication review (MR) by the Royal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA) and 4) Belgian pharmacy students. The survey included 57 criteria, divided into eight domains, which were ranked according to their importance by the participants. The results were analyzed statistically using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: The survey was completed by 95 participants, including 42 PRISMA pharmacists, 19 APA pharmacists, 18 KAVA pharmacists and 16 pharmacy students. Opinions from participants from the different groups overlapped significantly. The use of simple and understandable language in the conversation with the patient was considered essential by the majority. Discussing the usefulness and purpose of a MR3 with the patient was also rated highly by all groups. Differences of opinion were present in aspects about laboratory values, the use of specific tools, and reporting to and consultation with the treating physician. The participants themselves formulated a limited number of additional assessment criteria. Conclusion: There was widespread agreement on the hierarchy of the quality assessment criteria for MR3s. Minor differences were related to the experience of the participants. With these results and a small number of suggested extra criteria, a quality assessment instrument for MR3 can be created.