Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886501›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

How Do Pharmacists Practice in Aged Care? A Narrative Review of Models from Australia, England, and the United States of America.

Ibrahim Haider, Mark Naunton, Rachel Davey, Gregory M Peterson, Wasim Baqir, Sam Kosari

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ibrahim HaiderDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4047-2665
Mark NauntonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6422-7170
Rachel DaveyHealth Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.
Gregory M PetersonDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6764-3882
Wasim BaqirNHS England and NHS Improvement, London SE1 6LH, UK.
Sam KosariDiscipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6737-1442
University of Canberra · AUNHS EnglandUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medication management in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) is complex and often sub-optimal. Pharmacist practice models and services have emerged internationally to address medication-related issues in RACFs. This narrative review aimed to explore pharmacist practice models in aged care in Australia, England and the USA, and identify key activities and characteristics within each model. A search strategy using key terms was performed in peer-reviewed databases, as well as the grey literature. Additionally, experts from the selected countries were consulted to obtain further information about the practice models in their respective countries. Thirty-six documents met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Four major pharmacist practice models were identified and formed the focus of the review: (1) the NHS's Medicine Optimisation in Care Homes (MOCH) program from England; (2) the Australian model utilising visiting accredited pharmacists; (3) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) pharmacy services in long-term care from the USA; and (4) the Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program from the USA. Medication reviews were key activities in all models, but each had distinct characteristics in relation to the comprehensiveness, who is eligible, and how frequently residents receive medication review activity. There was heterogeneity in the types of facility-level activities offered by pharmacists, and further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these activities in improving quality use of medicines in the aged care setting. This review found that in some models, pharmacists have a limited level of collaboration with other healthcare professionals, emphasising the need to trial innovative models with integrated services and increased collaboration to achieve a holistic patient-centred approach to medication management.

Indexed as

Medication ReviewPharmacistsAgedAustraliaHumansMedication Therapy ManagementNational Health ProgramsUnited StatesAustraliaEnglandlong-term caremedication managementmedication reviewmodels of practicenursing homespharmacistsresidential aged care facilitiesUSA

Identifiers

PMID34886501
PMCPMC8657381
OpenAlexW4200386378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.