Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Current perspectives on pharmacist home visits: do we keep reinventing the wheel?

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      The scope of clinical pharmacy services available in outpatient settings, including home care, continues to expand. This review sought to identify the evidence to support pharmacist provision of clinical pharmacy services in a home care setting. Seventy-five reports were identified in the literature that provided evaluation and description of clinical pharmacy home visit services available around the world. Based on results from randomized controlled trials, pharmacist home visit interventions can improve patient medication adherence and knowledge, but have little impact on health care resource utilization. Other literature reported benefits of a pharmacist home visit service such as patient satisfaction, improved medication appropriateness, increased persistence with warfarin therapy, and increased medication discrepancy resolution. Current perspectives to consider in establishing or evaluating clinical pharmacy services offered in a home care setting include: staff competency, ideal target patient population, staff safety, use of technology, collaborative relationships with other health care providers, activities performed during a home visit, and pharmacist autonomy.

      Video abstract

      Related collections

      Most cited references 89

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

      We set out to determine the effects of pharmacist-led medication review in older people by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis covering 11 electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials in any setting, concerning older people (mean age > 60 years), were considered, aimed at optimizing drug regimens and improving patient outcomes. Our primary outcome was emergency hospital admission (all cause). Secondary outcomes were mortality and numbers of drugs prescribed. We also recorded data on drug knowledge, adherence and adverse drug reactions. We retrieved 32 studies which fitted the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 17 trials revealed no significant effect on all-cause admission, relative risk (RR) of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.14, P = 0.92], with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 49.5, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis of mortality data from 22 trials found no significant benefit, with a RR of mortality of 0.96 (95% CI 0.82, 1.13, P = 0.62), with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). Pharmacist-led medication review may slightly decrease numbers of drugs prescribed (weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI -0.89, -0.07), but significant heterogeneity was found (I(2) = 85.9%, P < 0.001). Results for additional outcomes could not be pooled, but suggested that interventions could improve knowledge and adherence. Pharmacist-led medication review interventions do not have any effect on reducing mortality or hospital admission in older people, and can not be assumed to provide substantial clinical benefit. Such interventions may improve drug knowledge and adherence, but there are insufficient data to know whether quality of life is improved.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial.

        To determine whether home based medication review by pharmacists affects hospital readmission rates among older people. Randomised controlled trial. Home based medication review after discharge from acute or community hospitals in Norfolk and Suffolk. 872 patients aged over 80 recruited during an emergency admission (any cause) if returning to own home or warden controlled accommodation and taking two or more drugs daily on discharge. Two home visits by a pharmacist within two weeks and eight weeks of discharge to educate patients and carers about their drugs, remove out of date drugs, inform general practitioners of drug reactions or interactions, and inform the local pharmacist if a compliance aid is needed. Control arm received usual care. Total emergency readmissions to hospital at six months. Secondary outcomes included death and quality of life measured with the EQ-5D. By six months 178 readmissions had occurred in the control group and 234 in the intervention group (rate ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.58; P = 0.009, Poisson model). 49 deaths occurred in the intervention group compared with 63 in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.75, 0.52 to 1.10; P = 0.14). EQ-5D scores decreased (worsened) by a mean of 0.14 in the control group and 0.13 in the intervention group (difference = 0.01, -0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.84, t test). The intervention was associated with a significantly higher rate of hospital admissions and did not significantly improve quality of life or reduce deaths. Further research is needed to explain this counterintuitive finding and to identify more effective methods of medication review.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Objectives Pharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients’ clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO from inception to December 2014. Included studies were all published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care, aimed at improving medication reconciliation programmes. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the sources of heterogeneity. Results 17 studies involving 21 342 adult patients were included. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies targeted multiple transitions and compared comprehensive medication reconciliation programmes including telephone follow-up/home visit, patient counselling or both, during the first 30 days of follow-up. The pooled relative risks showed a more substantial reduction of 67%, 28% and 19% in adverse drug event-related hospital revisits (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.53), emergency department (ED) visits (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) and hospital readmissions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) in the intervention group than in the usual care group, respectively. The pooled data on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) and composite readmission and/or ED visit (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) did not differ among the groups. There was significant heterogeneity in the results related to readmissions and ED visits, however. Subgroup analyses based on study design and outcome timing did not show statistically significant results. Conclusion Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes are effective at improving post-hospital healthcare utilisation. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes that include some component aimed at improving medication safety.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Pharmacy Community Programs, Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services, Langley, BC, Canada, priti.flanagan@ 123456fraserhealth.ca
            [2 ]Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, priti.flanagan@ 123456fraserhealth.ca
            Author notes
            Correspondence: Priti S Flanagan, Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services, 2nd Floor, 8521 198A Street, Langley, BC V2Y ØA1, Canada, Tel +1 604 455 1328 (ext 741403), Email priti.flanagan@ 123456fraserhealth.ca
            Journal
            Integr Pharm Res Pract
            Integr Pharm Res Pract
            Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice
            Integrated Pharmacy Research & Practice
            Dove Medical Press
            2230-5254
            2018
            01 October 2018
            : 7
            : 141-159
            6171762
            10.2147/IPRP.S148266
            iprp-7-141
            © 2018 Flanagan and Barns. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

            The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

            Categories
            Review

            Comments

            Comment on this article