Anneleen Robberechts

Background: Medication review is a multifaceted service aimed at optimizing the use of medicines and enhancing the health outcomes of patients. Due to its complexity, it is crucial to clearly describe the service, its variants, and its components to avoid confusion and ensure a better understanding of medication review among healthcare providers. Aim: This study aims to bring clarity to the origins, definitions, abbreviations, and types of medication reviews, together with the primary criteria that delineate key features of this service. Method: A narrative review approach was employed to clarify the diverse terminology associated with “medication review” services. Relevant references were initially identified through searches on PubMed and Google Scholar, complementing the existing literature known to the authors. Results: The study uncovers a complicated and sometimes convoluted history of “medication review” in different regions around the world. The initial optimization of medicine use had an economic purpose before evolving subsequently into a more patient-oriented approach. A selection of abbreviations, definitions, and types were outlined to enhance the understanding of the service. Conclusions: The study underscores the urgent need for comprehensive information and standardization regarding the content and quality of the services, collectively referred to as “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.

Background Medication reviews are a structured critical evaluation of a patient's pharmacotherapy, carried out by a healthcare professional, but are not yet a routine pharmaceutical service in Belgium. A pilot project to initiate an advanced medication review (= type 3 medication review) in community pharmacies was set up by the Royal Pharmacists' Association of Antwerp. Aim To investigate the experiences and opinions of patients who participated in this pilot project. Method Qualitative study through semi-structured interviews with participating patients. Results Seventeen patients from six different pharmacies were interviewed. The medication review process with the pharmacist was perceived as positive and instructive by fifteen interviewees. The extra attention that the patient received was highly appreciated. However, the interviews revealed that patients did not fully understand the purpose and structure of this new service or were aware of the subsequent contact and feedback with the general practitioner. Medication reviews in the home setting put patients more at ease, were highly appreciated, and enabled also to address practical problems such as drug dosing or storage requirements. Conclusion This qualitative study analysed patients’ experiences during a pilot project on the implementation of type 3 medication review. Although most patients were enthusiastic about this new service, a lack of patients’ understanding of the whole process was also observed. Therefore, better communication to patients by pharmacists and general practitioners about the goals and components of this type of medication review is needed, with the added benefit of increased efficiency.

Objective Examining the implementation barriers and facilitators of this service as provided by Belgian community pharmacists in collaboration with general practitioners. Setting Community pharmacies in Flanders. Method Qualitative study through interviews of pharmacists and general practitioners. Main outcome measure Opinions and experiences of pharmacists and general practitioners about type 3 medication review. Results Sixteen community pharmacists and thirteen general practitioners were interviewed and generally gave a positive assessment of the project. The general practitioners saw the pharmaceutical and pharmacotherapeutic recommendations of the pharmacists as an added value for the patients. The pharmacists indicated that performing an medication review was time-consuming, but that it improved their professional relationship with general practitioners and patients. They reported obstacles in obtaining information: cumbersome access to individual patient data (laboratory values) and difficulties in finding and choosing adequate medical information sources. Moreover, pharmacists indicated that there is a need for adequate reimbursement and additional training to make the implementation sustainable. Conclusion Both pharmacists and general practitioners were enthusiastic about medication reviews. The implementation improved the interprofessional collaboration. However, important barriers remain, such as the considerable investment of time and the difficulty in gathering all the necessary information. The sustainable implementation of type 3 medication review in Belgium requires adequate reimbursement and additional training.