Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36627568›Full record

Observational studyBMC primary care2023

Pharmacist-led clinical medication review service in primary care: the perspective of general practitioners.

Urska Nabergoj Makovec, Tanja Tomsic, Mitja Kos, Tea Stegne Ignjatovic, Antonija Poplas Susic

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Urska Nabergoj MakovecUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy, Askerceva cesta 7, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. urska.nabergoj.makovec@ffa.uni-lj.si.
Tanja TomsicCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mitja KosUniversity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy, Askerceva cesta 7, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tea Stegne IgnjatovicCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Antonija Poplas SusicCommunity Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

NHLBI CLINICAL INVESTIGATOR AWARDK08HL001312 · NHLBI · LANKENAU HOSPITAL · PI MICHELSON, ERIC L · 1985 to 1987
–
British Heart Foundation RG/13/12/30395
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn advanced level medication review service (CMR) is systematically reimbursed and available nationwide in Slovenian primary care since 2016. CMR is performed by clinical pharmacists (CP). Close collaboration with general practitioner (GP) is required as they perform patient selection and make clinical decisions regarding patient's medication.

methodsA prospective observational study was conducted in 2018 aiming to evaluate the perspective of GPs on the implementation of pharmacist-led medication review service in Community Health Care Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia. GPs of the patients, who provided written informed consent were invited for the interviews. The semi-structured interview consisted of 5 open ended questions addressing reasons for referral of the patients, implementation of CP recommendations and the GPs' perspective of the service in general. Interviews were audio recorded with GPs written consent, transcribed verbatim and inductive content analysis was performed in NVivo11 Pro.

resultsIn total 38 interviews with 24 GPs were performed. The emerged themes were nested under 3 main domains representing Donabedian model of quality healthcare - structure, process, outcomes. The service structure is built on broad pharmacotherapy knowledge as the main CP competency, good accessibility, and complementarity of healthcare professions. Patients are mainly referred to the CMR due to polypharmacotherapy, however in majority there is a more in-depth reason behind (e.g., adverse events, etc.). Lack of time to recognize eligible patients and additional workload to study and implement the recommendations present the major challenges in the service process and therefore low number of referrals. CPs recommendations are mostly accepted, although the implementation time varies. When recommendation addresses medicines prescribed by a clinical specialist, the CMR report is forwarded to them for decision regarding implementation. The empowerment of the patients in medicines use was emphasized as the major benefit of the CMR, which consequently supports and enhances the quality of GP's patient care. Transferability of recommendations to similar cases and high satisfaction with the service of GPs and patients, were mentioned.

conclusionGPs experiences with CMR are encouraging and supportive and present a base for further growth of the service.

Indexed as

General PractitionersHumansMedication ReviewPharmacistsPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareClinical medication reviewClinical pharmacistGeneral practitionerPharmacotherapyPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID36627568
PMCPMC9832745

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.