Medication review in German community pharmacies

• Verfasst von: Seidling, Hanna [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Send, Alexander Francesco Josef [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bittmann, Janina [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bruckner, Thomas [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Haefeli, Walter E. [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Medication review in German community pharmacies
• Titelzusatz: post-hoc analysis of documented drug-related problems and subsequent interventions in the ATHINA-project
• Verf.angabe: Hanna Marita Seidling, Alexander Francesco Josef Send, Janina Bittmann, Katja Renner, Bernd Dewald, Dörte Lange, Thomas Bruckner, Walter Emil Haefeli
• Jahr: 2017
• Umfang: 8 S.
• Fussnoten: Available online 24 October 2016 ; Gesehen am 29.06.2018
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Research in social and administrative pharmacy
• Ort Quelle: Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2005
• Jahr Quelle: 2017
• Band/Heft Quelle: 13(2017), 6, Seite 1127-1134
• ISSN Quelle: 1934-8150
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.10.016
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Community pharmacies
• Sach-SW: Drug-related problem
• Sach-SW: Medication review
• Sach-SW: Post-hoc analysis
• K10plus-PPN: 1577035437

Abstract

Background: Any medication can cause drug-related problems (DRPs), which can often be detected by medication reviews. So far, only limited information is available on the practicability of systematic medication reviews in community pharmacies in daily routine and their value in Germany. Since 2012, the community pharmacy-centered medication review project “ATHINA - Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit in Apotheken [medication safety in community pharmacies]” is endorsed by four Chambers of Pharmacists in Germany. The aim of this evaluation was to post-hoc analyze the nature of medication reviews performed in ATHINA. Methods: For this analysis, information from anonymized, structured documentation sheets of medication reviews performed from 2012 to 2015 were analyzed. Documentation sheets contained demographic information of the patient, the patient's medication, and structured information on any information need or DRP identified for a specific drug, the pharmacists' actions taken with regard to the identified problem (e.g. contact with a physician), and whether the problem was ultimately resolved completely, partly, or not at all. Results: Overall, 241 pharmacists documented 912 medication reviews with on average 10.8 ± 3.6 drugs. In 869 reviews (95.3%), the pharmacist documented at least one drug with information need or DRP. In 75.7% (N = 3972/5248) of the drugs with at least one information need or DRP, the pharmacists documented the action taken to solve the problem. At the end of the medication review, 359 (39.4%) of the cases had only drugs with resolved or no identified problems. Overall, the ratio of DRPs per drug regimen was reduced from 56% ± 22.7 drugs with at least one information need or DRP in the beginning to 28.9% ± 18.3 in the end. Conclusion: This analysis indicates that community pharmacists can deliberately identify patients with information needs and DRPs and solve many of these problems in the course of a medication review.