11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Home medicines reviews: a national survey of Australian accredited pharmacists’ health service time investment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Background:

          In Australia, polypharmacy and medication-related problems are prevalent in the community. Therefore, medicines safety initiatives such as the Home Medicines Review (HMR) service are critical to health care provision. While the evidence continues to expand around HMR service, little is known of accredited pharmacists’ experiences of HMR time investment.

          Objective:

          This study aimed to explore accredited pharmacists’ experiences of HMR practice regarding time investment in the study’s defined HMR Stages: 1 (initial paper-based assessment and review), 2 (in-home patient-accredited pharmacist consultation), and 3 (HMR report collation, generation, completion, and provision to the patient’s General Practitioner, including any liaison time).

          Methods:

          An electronic survey was developed and piloted by a panel of reviewers. Convenience sampling was used to distribute the final anonymous survey nationally via professional pharmacy organisations. Data were analyzed for frequency distributions and a chi-square test of independence was performed to evaluate any association between demographic variables relating to HMR time investment.

          Results:

          There was a total of 255 survey respondents, representing approximately 10% of national accredited pharmacist membership. The majority were experienced accredited pharmacists who had completed >100 HMRs (73%), were female (71%), and aged >40 years (60%). Regarding time investment for a typical instance of HMR, most spent: <30 minutes performing Stage 1 (46.7%), and 30-60 minutes performing Stage 2 (70.2%). In Stage 3, 40.0% invested 1-2 hours, and 27.1% invested 2-3 hours in HMR report collation and completion. Quantitative analysis revealed statistically significant (p=0.03) gender findings where females performed longer patient consultations than males (Stage 2). More HMR career experience resulted in statistically significant (p=0.01) less time performing Stage 1 (initial paper-based assessment and review); with a trend to less time performing Stage 3 (HMR report writing).

          Conclusions:

          Accredited pharmacists invest significant time in performing comprehensive HMRs, especially during in-home patient consultations and during HMR report collation and completion. Their significant HMR time investment as medicines experts provides insight for program and workforce considerations and warrants further research to better understand their work processes for optimizing medicines use and improving health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

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

          Medication-related burden and patients’ lived experience with medicine: a systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies

          Objective To explore medication-related burden (MRB) and patients’ lived experience with medicines (PLEM) without regard to particular medication therapies or medical conditions. Design Systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, Global health, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 to August 2014 using medication burden and patients’ lived experience terms. Synthesis methods Synthesis was undertaken following metaethnography methods and a comparative thematic analysis technique. Results 34 articles from 12 countries with a total of 1144 participants were included. 3 major inter-related themes emerged central to PLEM: MRB, medication related beliefs and medication taking practice. The negative impact of MRB, due to its interference on patients’ daily lives and effects on well-being, its influence on patients’ beliefs and behaviours, and a potential risk for drug-related problems (DRPs) was evident. This resulted in non-adherence and poorer outcomes (unachieved therapeutic goals and damage to patients’ health). Patients who experienced MRB interference in their life over time begin to juggle their medicines. Others continue their medicines despite experiencing MRB resulting in compromised physical, social or psychological well-being. Conclusions There is a shared commonality of PLEM among the studies. MRB plays a central role in influencing patients’ health and well-being, beliefs and behaviour towards medicines. Given the complexity of MRB and its impact evident from this review, there is a need for healthcare practitioners to have insight into PLEM in therapeutic care plans. Understanding PLEM is an opportunity for practitioners to identify particular MRBs that patients encounter, and provide individualised care through selection of therapeutic care plans that suit a patient's life. This may assist in helping to achieve patients’ medication-related needs, and improve medication therapy and health outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            PCNE definition of medication review: reaching agreement

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

              The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review.

              The aim of the study was to examine differences in consultation process and health outcomes between primary care physicians who consult at different rates. A systematic review of observational studies was carried out, restricted to English language journal papers reporting original research or systematic reviews. Qualitative analysis with narrative overview of methodology and key results was undertaken, using MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), EMBASE (1981 to 1999), and the NHS National Research Register. Secondary references from this search were also considered for inclusion. Main outcome measures were objectively measured process or healthcare outcomes. Thirteen papers, describing ten studies, were identified. There were consistent differences in several elements of process and outcome between general practitioners (GPs) who consult at different rates. Although average consultation length may be a marker of other doctor attributes, the evidence suggests that patients seeking help from a doctor who spends more time with them are more likely to have a consultation that includes important elements of care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharmacy Practice
                Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas
                1885-642X
                1886-3655
                Jul-Sep 2021
                2 August 2021
                : 19
                : 3
                : 2376
                Affiliations
                PhD, BPharm, MPS, AACPA, SFHEA. Lecturer, Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). Marea.patounas@ 123456qut.edu.au
                PhD, BPharm, MPS, GCResComm, GradCertAcadPrac, SFHEA. Senior Lecturer. Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). Et.lau@ 123456qut.edu.au
                PhD, BPharm, MPH, MPS. Senior Lecturer. School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University . Melbourne (Australia). Vincent.chan@ 123456rmit.edu.au
                BPharm, GradDipClinPharm, AdvPracPharm, FPS, FSHP, FACP, FASCP, FAICD. Clinical Associate Professor. Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). drigby@ 123456bigpond.net.au
                PhD, BPharm, MClinPharm, MPS. Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences , Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). greg.kyle.pharmacist@ 123456gmail.com
                MPH, BPharm. Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). Jyoti.khatrikc@ 123456hdr.qut.edu.au
                PhD, BPharm, MSPharm. Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences , Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). A3.poudel@ 123456qut.edu.au
                PhD, BPharm, AdvPracPharm, FPS, FHKAPh, FSHP. Professor and Head of School, Faculty of Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) . Brisbane (Australia). L.nissen@ 123456qut.edu.au
                Author notes

                Conceptualization: MP, LMN, ETL, DR, VC. Methodology: MP, LMN, ETL, DR, VC. Investigation: MP. Project administration: MP. Formal analysis: JK, AP, MP. Supervision: LMN, ETL, VC, DR, GJK. Writing - original draft: MP, VC, DR, LMN, JK, GJK. Writing – review & editing: MP, ETL, LMN, VC, DR, AP.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-0518
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1892-9996
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5536-1565
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-4269
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4943-2077
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8151-2363
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3601-4650
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5826-4605
                Article
                pharmpract-19-2376
                10.18549/PharmPract.2021.3.2376
                8370188
                34457093
                cc984b70-7155-40fc-959c-4c3fddabeeb7
                Copyright: © The Authors

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 March 2021
                : 25 July 2021
                Categories
                Original Research

                pharmacists,pharmaceutical services,polypharmacy,medication therapy management,time management,efficiency,delivery of health care,surveys and questionnaires,australia

                Comments

                Comment on this article