Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
  1. Miriam E. Craske1,
  2. Wendy Hardeman2,
  3. Nicholas Steel3,
  4. Michael J Twigg1,4
  1. 1 School of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  2. 2 School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  3. 3 Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
  4. 4 Research Design and Development, NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB, Norwich, UK
  1. Correspondence to Miriam E. Craske; m.craske{at}uea.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as ‘a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient’s total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems’. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes.

Aim To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews.

Method Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were “medication review”, “pharmacist”, “randomised controlled trial” and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews’ components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables.

Results Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients’ ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems.

Conclusion This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42020173907.

  • medication safety
  • patient-centred care
  • pharmacists
  • randomised controlled trial

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors Conceptualization: MEC, WH, NS, MJT. Data extraction: MEC, samples verified by MJT and WH. Data analysis: MEC. Writing- Original Draft: MEC Writing- Review & Editing: MEC, WH, NS, MJT. All authors approved the article for submission. MJT accepts full responsibility for the work and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding This study was funded by the University of East Anglia (as part of a funded PhD).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles