Sonja Kallio

Long-term continuing education programs have been a key factor in shifting toward more patient-centered clinical pharmacy services. This narrative review aims to describe the development of Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) Pharmacy’s in-house Comprehensive Medication Review Training Program (CMRTP) and how it has impacted clinical pharmacy services in HUS. The CMRTP was developed during the years 2017–2020. The program focuses on developing the special skills and competencies needed in comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), including interprofessional collaboration and pharmacotherapeutic knowledge. The program consists of two modules: (I) Pharmacist-Led Medication Reconciliation, and (II) CMR. The CMRTP includes teaching sessions, self-learning assignments, medication reconciliations, medication review cases, CMRs, a written final report, and a self-assessment of competence development. The one-year-long program is coordinated by a clinical teacher. The program is continuously developed based on the latest guidelines in evidence-based medicine and international benchmarking in cooperation with the University of Helsinki. With the CMRTP, we have adopted a more patient-centered role for our clinical pharmacists and remarkably expanded the services. This program may be benchmarked in other countries where the local education system does not cover clinical pharmacy competence well enough and in hospitals where the clinical pharmacy services are not yet very patient-oriented.

Background: Community pharmacists increasingly contribute to medication risk management while dispensing medicines to outpatients. Their risk management actions are shifting from medication counselling towards reviewing medications and following-up their therapeutic effects and outcomes. Acquiring these more clinical tasks require more patient care-oriented competences. Objective: To identify gaps in community pharmacists’ competence in medication risk management in routine dispensing. Setting: All community pharmacies in Finland. Method: A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted through the Association of Finnish Pharmacies (n=574 community pharmacies) and the university pharmacies (n=2) in 2015. One pharmacist from each pharmacy was recommended to report on behalf of their outlet. Main outcome measure: Community pharmacists’ self-assessed competence to: 1) identify medication-related risks, 2) utilise electronic tools in medication risk management, and 3) identify their perceived needs for developing competence in medication risk management. Results: Responses were received from 169 community pharmacies (response rate 29%). The highest proportion of good competency estimates were self-assessed in confirming doses (98% of the respondents evaluated their competence to be good) and identifying drug-drug interactions (83%). Competence to identify adverse effects, such as serotonergic load (10%) and anticholinergic load (12%), was most seldomly perceived as good. Of the wide range of electronic databases available, respondents most commonly reported using daily summaries of product characteristics (97% of the respondents), the checklist-type generic medicines information database that supports in medication counselling (85%), and the programme assisting in identifying drug-drug interactions (83%). The most commonly reported training needs were related to the identification of serotonergic load (63%), anticholinergic load (62%), and evaluating the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions (54%). Conclusion: The results indicate remarkable gaps in community pharmacists’ current competence in medication risk management, particularly in their competence in applied and geriatric pharmacotherapy.

Community pharmacists have a duty to contribute to medication risk management in outpatient care. This study aimed to investigate the actions taken by pharmacists in routine dispensing to manage medication risks. The study was conducted as a national cross-sectional online survey targeted at all community pharmacies in Finland (n = 576) in October 2015. One pharmacist from each pharmacy was recommended to be the spokesperson for the outlet to describe their practices. Responses were received from 169 pharmacies (response rate of 29%). Pharmacists were oriented to solving poor adherence and technical problems in prescriptions, whereas responsibility for therapeutic risks was transferred to the patient to resolve them with the physician. Pharmacists have access to a wide range of electronic medication risk management tools, but they are rarely utilized in daily dispensing. Attention was paid to drug–drug interactions and the frequency of dispensing with regard to high-risk medicines. Pharmacies rarely had local agreements with other healthcare providers to solve medication-related risks. In routine dispensing, more attention needs to be given to the identification and solving of therapeutic risks in medications, especially those of older adults. Better participation of community pharmacists in medication risk management requires stronger integration and an explicit mandate to solve the therapeutic risks.

Objectives: To identify medication review interventions for older adults that involve community pharmacists and evidence of outcomes of these interventions. Design: Systematic review. Measurements: Cinahl, MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2000 and February 2016. Articles involving community pharmacists in medication reviews for outpatients aged 65 and older were included. Evidence of economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes of interventions was summarized. Results: Sixteen articles were found that described 12 medication review interventions, of which 6 were compliance and concordance reviews, 4 were clinical medication reviews, and 2 were prescription reviews according to a previously developed typology. Community pharmacists' contributions to reviewing medications varied from sending the dispensing history to other healthcare providers to comprehensive involvement in medication management. The most commonly assessed outcomes of the interventions were medication changes leading to reduction in actual or potential drug‐related problems (n=12) and improved adherence (n=5). Conclusion: Regardless of community pharmacists' contributions to interventions, medication review interventions seem to reduce drug‐related problems and increase medication adherence. More well‐designed, rigorous studies with more sensitive and specific outcomes measures need to be conducted to assess the effect of community pharmacists' contributions to reviewing medications and improving the health of older adults.

Objective: The Finnish Medicines Agency (Fimea) initiated a programme in 2012 for enhancing interprofessional networking in the medication management of the aged. The goal is to develop national guidelines for interprofessional collaboration with respect to medication management. This study aims to explore the challenges and potential solutions experienced by existing health care teams in managing medication of the aged: (1) at the individual and team level (micro level), (2) organisational level (meso level) and (3) structural level (macro level). Design: Group discussions (n = 10), pair (n = 3) and individual interviews (n = 2). Abductive content analysis combining data and theory was applied. Networking was used as a theoretical framework. Setting: Meetings (n = 15) organised by Fimea in the formation phase of the interprofessional network in 2012. Subjects: Health care professionals (n = 55). Main outcome measures: Challenges and solutions in the medication management of the aged at the micro, meso and macro levels. Results: Challenges in interprofessional collaboration, problems with patient record systems, and the organisation of work and lack of resources were present at all the levels contributing to patients’ medication problems. Participants suggested multiple potential solutions to improve interprofessional collaboration, sharing of tasks and responsibilities, better exploitation of pharmaceutical knowledge and developing tools as being the most commonly mentioned. Conclusions: Optimising medication use of the aged requires new systemic solutions within and between different system levels. The main challenges can be solved by clarifying responsibilities, enhancing communication and applying operational models that involve pharmacists and the use of information technology in medication management.