http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0266-0702
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.
Aim
To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.
Methods
A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.
Results
Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).
Conclusion
There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.
Citation: Silva RdOS, Macêdo LA, Santos GAd Júnior, Aguiar PM, de Lyra DP Júnior (2019) Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210312
Editor: Robert K. Hills, University of Oxford, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: December 30, 2017; Accepted: December 20, 2018; Published: January 10, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Silva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Medication Review (MR) has been defined as a structured assessment of patients’ pharmacotherapy whose aim is to optimize the drug use and to improve health outcomes [1]. Despite that concept, MR is used as a generic term and its practice can be performed by some health professionals, such as physicians, nurses and pharmacists, causing confusion regarding its characterization and effectiveness. In the MR, pharmacists play an important role in the detection and resolution of drug-related problems (DRPs) through interaction with patients and/or healthcare professionals [2].
The MR conducted by pharmacists may be classified into three types: Prescription Review, Concordance and Compliance Review (Adherence Support Review), and Clinical Medication Review (with or without prescribing) [3, 4]. This practice, the last type particularly, must be conducted in collaboration with health professionals [5]. There are models of MR performed by pharmacists with collaboration of other health professionals in countries where pharmaceutical education is clinic-oriented as well as in those where pharmacists have no formal clinical education [6–11].
In Australia, there are examples of MR in which after the pharmacist assesses the patient’s pharmacotherapy, he sends a report with recommendations to the patient’s physician. After agreement with the pharmacist, the physician discusses the proposed recommendations with the patient [8, 9]. The implementation of these recommendations made by the pharmacist may be influenced by some factors such as: a good working relationship between the pharmacist and the health care team [2], the type of communication between the pharmacist and the team (verbal or written) [2, 10, 11] and the clinical relevance of the recommendations [10, 11].
In this context, studies show that pharmacist-participated MR has a positive impact on patients in practice settings such as community pharmacies [12, 13], long-term care facilities [14,15], outpatient clinic [16], home care [17, 18] and hospitals [19, 20]. Besides the identification and resolutions of DRPs [21–23], the studies highlight benefits such as increase in quality of life [24], decrease of hospitalizations and health costs [25, 26]. In order to achieve such results, the implementation of MR demands changes in pharmacists’ professional and social behaviour [18].
Although a previous overview of systematic reviews has corroborated the importance of MR for the improvement of patients’ health outcomes, it restricted relevant aspects such as methodological quality, practice settings, and assessed outcomes [27]. Moreover, the mentioned overview didn’t focus on concepts, terminologies and approach (as service or practice component) of MR as well as the professionals involved in this practice (interprofessional collaboration). The study of these variables is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and to compare results.
Taking this into consideration, the present overview aimed to examine: 1) the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings; 2) methodological quality of systematic reviews included in this overview; 3) the concepts, terminologies, and MR approach as well as the interprofessional collaboration in MR.
Methods
This overview of systematic reviews was performed according to the tool “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) [28].
Definitions
This overview of systematics reviews adopted the following concepts:
- Systematic reviews: studies that: (i) present a clear research question and/or eligibility criteria used to select primary studies; (ii) describe all information sources and the keywords used in the search; (iii) present the number of primary studies found in the information sources and included in the final sample of systematic review.
- Medication Review: critical and structured assessment of patients’ drugs with the objective of coming to an agreement of their pharmacotherapy, improving treatment, decreasing DRPs and costs with healthcare systems [29]. MR can be classified in Prescription Review, Concordance and Compliance Review (Adherence Support Review), and Clinical Medication Review (with or without prescribing) depending on their objective, patient’s presence, access to information and drugs and/or patient’s clinical conditions [3, 4],
Literature search
A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the following databases: Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis published until 31 January 2018. To that end, Medical Subject Headings (MESH) vocabulary [30] and non-standard terms (text words) were used. Full search strategy can be seen in S1 Table. This overview has not been registered on PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.
Systematic reviews selection
Systematic reviews were selected in four stages: 1) exclusion of repeated articles; 2) title and abstract screening; 3) full-text screening; and, 4) manual screening of references of the systematic reviews included after reading full articles. Systematic reviews were independently selected by two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) and divergences were solved by a third investigator (G.A.S.J.). If articles were not available in full, authors were contacted via ResearchGate (www.researchgate.net) and e-mail. The stages 1, 2, and 3 of the study selection were performed using the Rayyan QCRI tool [31].
The included systematic reviews attended the following criteria: (i) they were published in English, Portuguese or Spanish; (ii) they were systematic reviews followed or not by meta-analysis; (iii) they examined MR (focused on MR or included different pharmaceutical services/interventions, but the results were presented by type of service/intervention); (iv) they adopted terminology for MR adopted in the search strategy; and (vi) pharmacist-participated MR in all primary studies with or without collaboration of other health professionals. Systematic reviews that did not present the definition of MR were included only if the interventions described in primary studies accorded to the concept of MR adopted.
In this overview, other systematic reviews were excluded because: i) full text was unavailable; (ii) MR was performed collaboratively by pharmacist and other health professionals but the pharmacist’s role within the team was not clearly defined in the primary studies included.
Data extraction
Two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) extracted independently the following data: authors, publication year, main author’s country, aim, country of primary studies, study design, practice setting, and population, number of primary studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, number of primary studies related to MR, assessed outcomes related to the drug use process, and economic, clinical, and human outcomes (ECHO model) [32], main results, concepts, terminologies, and approach (service or intervention) of MR, interprofessional collaboration, structure, processes, and outcomes variables [33, 34] described in the systematic reviews as well as limitations or biases. Except for the number of primary studies included in the systematic reviews and meta-analysis, all data were extracted only from primary studies on MR. In case of data absence or clear pieces of information, it was considered that authors did not report such variable. Discrepancies among investigators were solved by consensus.
Study design, practice setting and population were determined according to the authors of systematic reviews. Regarding terminologies of MR, the words used in the search strategies of the included systematic reviews were not considered. If the review presented different MR definitions, the one presented in the methodology was adopted. Moreover, in the absence of a clear definition, components or objectives of MR were extracted. Interprofessional collaboration was considered present if at least one primary study reported it.
Quality assessment
Two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) analyzed independently the methodological quality, and discrepancies were solved by consensus. To achieve that, the AMSTAR tool [28] was used, which is composed by 11 criteria, each one judged as “yes,” “no,” “cannot answer,” or “not applicable”. Total score was obtained by the attribution of one point to “yes” answers and zero to other answers, varying score from 0 to 11. The score was ranged according to Mikton and Butchart (2009) [35]: i) score 0–4, low quality; ii) 5–8, moderate quality; and, iii) 9–11, high quality.
Agreement between investigators
Cohen’s Kappa index (k) was used to measure degree of agreement between the two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) in the title, abstract and full text screenings as well as in the assessment of methodological quality. Degree of agreement was stratified: i) k < 0.10, no agreement; ii) k < 0.40, weak agreement; iii) 0.40 < k < 0.75, good agreement; and, iv) k > 0.75, excellent agreement [36].
Results
Selection of systematic reviews
The literature search identified 3,053 articles, from which 2,950 were excluded mainly because of: i) simultaneous indexation in two or more databases; ii) language; iii) they were not a systematic review; and/or, iv) they did not examine MR. Thus, 103 articles were selected to full-text screening, from which 17 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Their references were revised manually, and 68 were identified as potentially relevant. From these, none met the inclusion criteria. Excluded full texts and their reasons for exclusion are summarized in S2 Table.
From 17 articles included, 10 focus on MR [37–46] and seven include other services/interventions besides MR [47–53]. Fig 1 illustrates the selection process.
Degree of agreement between the two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) was excellent for title and abstract screenings (k1 = 0.942) and full-text screening (k2 = 0.805).
Quality assessment
Scores of methodological quality after consensus are presented in Table 1. The percentage of reviews that met each item of AMSTAR is presented in Fig 2. Score varied from 2 to 9, presenting average 4.82 ± 2.09. Degree of agreement between the two investigators (R.O.S.S. and L.A.M.) was excellent (k = 0.802). Among the 17 reviews, eight were categorized as low quality [37, 39, 47–49, 51–53]; eight as moderate quality [38, 40–43, 44, 46, 50]; and one review presented high quality [45]. Seven articles that presented from moderate to high quality were published from 2013 to 2017 [40–46]. Seven reviews with meta-analysis presented AMSTAR score between 4–8 [37, 40– 42, 44, 49, 53].
Item six (characteristics about participants, interventions, and results) was presented by all reviews [37–54]. Most of reviews performed literature search in at least two databases and supplementary search (item 3) [37, 38, 42–49, 51, 53] and performed the quality assessment of systematic reviews (item 7) [37, 38, 40–45, 50]. On the other hand, only two reviews registered the protocol for systematic review (item 1) [40, 42] and presented the assessment of publication bias (item 10) [41, 45].
Characteristics of systematic reviews
Characteristics of systematic reviews are described in Table 1. All reviews were published in English between 2005 and 2016. The main authors of the included systematic reviews were from four continents: America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Most of reviews had their main authors from Europe (seven reviews; 41.17%) [30–33, 40, 41, 43, 48], Asia (four reviews; 23.53%) [40, 44, 46, 52], and Oceania (four reviews; 23.53%) [41, 43, 47, 49], especially Australia (three reviews; 17,64%) [43, 47, 49]. Primary studies were performed in 28 different countries, and Australia (n = 13) [37–39, 41, 43–46, 48–51] and the United Kingdom (n = 13) [37, 38, 41, 43–51] were the most frequent countries. No primary study of the systematic reviews was found in Latin America.
Most reviews included controlled studies [37–43, 44–47, 49–53]. Six reviews included only controlled randomized trials [37, 39, 45, 50, 53] and five reviews included primary studies of different design as observational, descriptive, qualitative, surveys, and controlled study [38, 43, 46, 48, 52]. Regarding population, most reviews included elderly patients [37, 39, 44–46, 49–53].
Most frequent primary studies settings were long-term care facilities [37, 46, 47, 49–52], hospitals [37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 52], primary care or clinics [37, 39– 42, 45], pharmacies [37, 39, 40, 41, 44], and patient’s home [37, 41, 44, 47].
Number of primary studies in the systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and related to MR; assessed outcomes, main results; and structure, processes and outcomes variables
Number of primary studies in the systematic reviews, meta-analysis and related to MR as well as assessed outcomes and main results are presented in Table 2. Number of primary studies included in the reviews varied from 5 [40] to 69 [52]. The minimum and maximum number of primary studies in the systematic reviews related to MR was 4 [44, 51–53] and 63, respectively [43]. Only seven of these reviews performed meta-analysis [37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49], in which the number of primary studies varied from 3 to 25 [37, 40].
Primary and secondary outcomes assessed were: mortality [37, 41, 42, 45, 50, 51], hospital visits (admissions, readmissions, hospitalizations and emergency department visits) [37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50], drug use [37, 41, 46, 49, 51], and quality of life [37, 40, 44, 45]. Regarding the assessment of impact of MR in the meta-analyses, significant impact was not shown in any systematic review of mortality [37, 41, 42, 45], hospitalizations [37, 41], length of hospital stay [42, 45], readmission [45], readmission and/or emergency department visits [45], and revisits to emergency department [42]. MR presented significantly positive impact (p<0.05) on the all-cause emergency department visits [45], blood pressure [41], drug-related readmissions [45] intensity of pain [40], low density lipoprotein [41], number of drugs prescribed [37], quality of life [44], patients’ satisfaction [40], and physical functioning [40].
Regarding Structure variables described in the systematic reviews, the most frequent were “pharmacists qualified to provide MR” [39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48], “access to medical records” [37–38, 40, 42], “number of pharmacists” [37, 39, 42, 44], and “remuneration system” [41, 43, 48]. Concerning the Process variables, “number of drugs used” [37–39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 49–52], “number of interventions” [38–40, 43, 46, 51], and “accepted interventions” [38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 52] were the most common. The most recurrent Outcomes variables, in turn, were “mortality” [37–39, 41–43, 45–47, 49–52], “quality of life” [37–45, 47, 49, 50], “economy of costs related to drugs” [37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 51], “number of hospital visits” [37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 51], and “patients’ satisfaction” [37, 38, 40, 43, 47].
Definitions, terminologies, MR approach, and interprofessional collaboration
Definitions of MR had the objective of identifying and solving DRPs and/or optimizing the drug use (Table 3) [37–39, 41–46, 48, 49]. Four systematic reviews presented components of MR, in which the most cited were: assessment of drug use history, review of patient’s medications, and health education [41, 42, 47].
The terminology “Medication Review” was used in all reviews (Table 3). Nine reviews used “Clinical Medication Review” [38, 39, 41, 45–47, 49, 51, 52] and five reviews, “Prescription Review” [38, 39, 41, 42, 46]. Moreover, 52.94% (n = 9) considered it as “intervention” [37, 40, 41, 44–46, 50–52], whilst 47.06% (n = 8) of systematic reviews considered MR as service [38, 39, 41, 43, 47–49, 53]. All reviews that used only one terminology considered MR as “intervention” [37, 40, 42, 43, 44].
Systematic reviews that reported interprofessional collaboration (Table 3) presented different collaborative models. Collaboration and communication occurred through direct and/or indirect contact, such as letters. The most cited health professionals were the physicians [37–40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49–52] and nurses [39, 43, 46, 47, 49–52].
Limitations declared by systematic reviews
Main limitations described were: absence of search in grey literature [37, 39, 41, 46, 50, 53]; possibility of loss and exclusion of primary studies during search and screening processes [39, 40, 50]; number [39, 42, 45, 49] and design of included primary studies [37, 43, 45, 46]; impossibility of performing meta-analysis or limited meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of primary studies [42–44]; and restriction of language in the selection of primary studies [38, 40, 44, 46, 51, 53].
Discussion
Most reviews had main authors and primary studies from Australia, which includes research with elderly people in community pharmacies, long-term care facilities and hospitals. Australia is one of the first countries to incorporate MR in primary outpatient care and has remuneration programs to accredited pharmacists who offer such service [54–57]. Furthermore, elderly people are some of the priority patients of this practice according to international guidelines as well as children and pregnant women [55–60]. Regarding the practice settings, Bulajeva et al. (2014) [54] corroborate our results when reported that in Europe, MR has been performed in community environments, hospitals, and long-term care facilities.
Terminologies for MR are not standardized in literature. Among the most well-known are: Home Medicines Review, Medication Use Review and Residential Medication Management Review, in Australia [61–63]; Revisión de la medicación and Revisión sistemática de la medicación, in Spain [64, 65]; Medication Review and Comprehensive Medication Review, in the United States [66, 67]; Comprehensive Medication Review, in Finland [68, 69]; and Medicines Use Review in the United Kingdom [70, 71]. These terminologies result from the differences in patient complexity and characteristics of each country and practice setting where MR is performed [72–74].
In pharmacy, there is no consensus among concepts and terminologies of clinical practice [75–79]. Linguistic and cultural questions as well as the overlapping between “what we do” and “how we do” can be causes of these divergences. Consequently, lack of standardization of definitions and terminologies can confuse researchers and professionals who aim to compare results and to confirm the practice effectiveness [75, 78]. Thus, definitions and terminologies internationally standardized can benefit the assessment of impact of MR [80]. Moreover, modelling of clinical pharmacy services should be used since it facilitates the standardization and comparison of MR and provides a holistic approach to the decision-making process and organizational change [81–85]. Therefore, establishing minimum quality standards for MR is important for comparison of the practice as well as for the optimization of the care provided and, consequently, of the patients’ health outcomes.
Regardless of the terminology adopted in systematic reviews, the objective of MR, both as service as well as intervention, is to identify and solve DRPs, implement changes in patients’ pharmacotherapy and improve health outcomes. This objective agreed with guidelines of the countries where this practice is more frequent. In this regard, interprofessional collaboration is necessary to reach this objective [55–60, 86, 87]. Collaborations among healthcare professionals declared in the systematic reviews can be seen as a positive factor to achieve better clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes.
Interprofessional collaboration can be encouraged through specializations, since they motivate information sharing and communication between healthcare professionals. Furthermore, appropriate training of these professionals, such as pharmacists, is essential to develop abilities to the clinical practice, for example, critical thinking and collaborative interpersonal practice [88]. In Australia, only pharmacists who are trained and go through assessments are accredited and can provide MR [89]. In the United States, post-graduate pharmacist residency training, as well as physician residency training, has become a requirement for entry-level health-system pharmacy practice [90]. In this same country, the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) (2016) [91] established interprofessional collaboration as one of the accreditation standards for the professional program in Pharmacy leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree. According to this institution, the curriculum should prepare students to provide entry-level, patient-centered care in different practice settings as member of an interprofessional team (with prescribers or other healthcare professional). Thus, literature supports our finding of "pharmacists qualified to provide MR" as a frequently described structure variable.
In this context, MR can be performed by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. Despite using the same terminology, for physicians and nurses, MR is usually a component of clinical practice whose process has not been well described in literature [92, 93]. In pharmacy, studies and guidelines of different countries described MR as a clinical pharmacy service or intervention [13, 16, 94–100]. In this overview, the systematic reviews who presented practice components of MR (e.g. assessment of drug use history, health education, and review of patient’s medications) addressed it as service or intervention. However, the discrepancy between the MR approach as an intervention and the concept of the intervention present in the literature is noticeable.
According to the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, “intervention” is “any action performed by a clinical pharmacist that directly results in the change of patient management or therapy” [101]. Suggett and Marriott (2016) [102], in turn, define “intervention” as a process in which the pharmacist identifies and makes recommendations in an attempt to prevent or resolve DRPs. The authors emphasize that the definition of “intervention” does not include MR without recommendations for changes in treatment.
In Brazil, “intervention” is a “professional action planned, documented and performed by the pharmacist for optimization of pharmacotherapy, promotion, protection and recovery of health, prevention of diseases and other health problems” [103]. Thus, we understand "pharmacist intervention" as an action whose goal is to improve patient health outcomes and that may result in changes in pharmacotherapy. In addition, "intervention" is a result of the situational analysis of the patient, and is part of the care plan, step of the patient care process.
Considering the patient care process, three stages are recommended in several health professions, including pharmacists: initial assessment, care plan, and assessment of outcomes. The first stage is a situational analysis in which the pharmacist gathers, analyzes and interprets information about patient’s clinical conditions and pharmacotherapy, aiming to evaluate his or her drug-related needs. The second stage is the care plan whose purpose is to agree with the patient the actions necessary to manage his or her clinical conditions successfully with pharmacotherapy. The care plan includes goals of therapy, interventions (e.g. inclusion of new drug therapy, patient education, and referrals to other health professionals), and a schedule for assessment of outcomes. In the third stage, patient outcomes are assessed, documented, and compared to the goals of therapy [104].
From the presented patient care process, the most appropriate MR approaches are as "service" or "practice component". As a service, MR should include all steps of the patient care process. As a practice component, MR is part of other health services, such as medication reconciliation, and consists of the situational analysis of the patient’s pharmacotherapy. Hence, future studies need to describe if MR is a clinical pharmacy service or a practice component. Only then, it will be possible to compare the impact of its results and assure the robustness of this practice.
Regardless of the MR approach, access to medical records is important for the clinical practice. Literature has reported that pharmacists should rely on medical records and technical drug information to make decisions based on evidences and provides the best possible patient care [105, 106]. Guidelines highlight the need to obtain patient information from different sources, such as interviews with patient and caregiver, clinical laboratory tests, and medical records, considering that they are complementary [55–60]. Therefore, describing access to medical records as a structure variable is relevant, since the limitation of access to any sources of information can result in the restriction of clinical activities of pharmacists.
Although there is no standardization for terminologies and approaches of MR, there are variables related to the care process that are commonly used in this practice, such as: “number of drugs” and “number of interventions”. Considering the objective of MR, literature confirms that the analysis of the number of drugs is necessary to the assessment of the impact of MR, especially because it can involve vulnerable patients which present polypharmacy, therapeutic duplication, drug interactions, and contraindications [55–60]. Thus, Cipolle et al. (2012) highlight that interventions related to the resolution of DRPs, usually in interprofessional collaboration, may result in the reduction of the number of drugs [104].
Despite Jokanovic et al. (2016) [27] mentioning the positive impact of MR in primary studies performed in community environments (e.g. blood pressure control, quality of life, and healthcare costs), some reviews included in our study show that MR results were contradictory, had little significant or were inconclusive. A systematic review conducted by Huiskes et al. (2017) [107] showed positive and negative effects for some outcomes variables described in our overview. According to the authors, the different results found may be a reflection of factors such as: 1) selection of patients, which may not fit the objective of MR; 2) how MR is performed in the clinical practice, since there is heterogeneity in the work processes and there is no gold standard on how it should be performed; and 3) outcomes and time of follow-up used to assess the impact of MR, variables that should be chosen according to the objective of MR and being more specific to diseases and drugs. Thus, heterogeneity of processes can affect the method of data analysis as well as the sensitivity and specificity of results, such as mortality, economy of drugs costs, hospital readmissions, quality of life and patients’ satisfaction.
Another factor that influences the impact analysis of MR is the methodological quality of the reviews. Although systematic reviews are considered a key element used to the practices of patient care, low quality of reviews have limited processes of decision making and performance of healthcare systems. Our findings were corroborated by literature that has reported low methodological quality of systematic reviews on clinical pharmacy practice. Melchiors et al. (2012) [108] assessed the quality of 31 systematic reviews, in which 24 presented low and moderate quality. In overview of seven systematic reviews, Aguiar et al. (2014) [109] noticed that 71.4% of the reviews had low and moderate quality. Rotta et al. (2015) [110], in turn, found in overview of 49 systematic reviews that no review met all AMSTAR criteria. Therefore, future systematic reviews should value high methodological quality to result in more reliable evidences of real impact of clinical services.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths of this overview include: research in six different databases as well as manual search in the references of the included systematic reviews; use of MESH terms and text words for the literature search; use of 15 different terminologies to MR in the literature search; title, abstract, and full text screenings as well as quality assessment performed by two independent investigators. Moreover, systematic reviews were not excluded based on methodological quality, study design, practice setting, and population. Thus, our study presents a panorama of systematic reviews about pharmacist-participated MR. This overview comprised variables little explored in overviews of systematic reviews on MR, such as definitions and terminologies of MR; interprofessional collaboration; MR approach as well as structure, processes, and outcomes variables described in the systematic reviews.
This overview also presents limitations. Search in the grey literature was not performed. As most systematic reviews are found in databases, the inclusion of only indexed reviews may not have influenced the final sample. Data extraction and analysis of the variables studied were based on systematic reviews rather than primary studies, which may have resulted in overlapping of primary studies in the evaluation of results of MR. Many included reviews did not provide clear information or presented few details on primary studies’ design, population, and practice setting; definitions of MR; and impact of MR, this might have compromised data extraction. Moreover, AMSTAR limitations, such as the subjectivity of items “no” and “cannot answer” and the dependence of quality of reports [111, 112], could have influenced the assessment of methodological quality of systematic reviews included in this overview.
Toward a future research agenda
This overview of systematic reviews is a starting point to analyze the panorama of literature on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings regarding to the concepts, terminologies and approach of MR as well as interprofessional collaboration. From the findings of this overview, it is possible to identify the need for future systematic reviews and primary studies to clarify these variables. The lack of clarity about concepts, terminologies and MR approach as well as interprofessional collaboration extracted from the primary studies of the included systematic reviews may be due to the summarization of the results found in these primary studies and/or to the lack of clarity of the primary studies themselves. Thus, future systematic reviews should analyze these variables in the primary studies in order to reinforce the need to standardize concepts, terminologies and approach of MR in the literature. Moreover, the findings of this overview should also be addressed in future primary studies since any systematic review is only as good as the primary studies that compose it. That is, having in the literature high quality of systematic reviews is just as important as having high quality primary studies. Therefore, future studies, both systematic reviews and primary studies, should clearly present the variables studied in this manuscript in order to facilitate the understanding of effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.
Conclusion
In this overview, considerable heterogeneity of systematic reviews about MR was evidenced, especially regarding practice setting, population, MR approach and terminology. Description of patient care process of the primary studies is not clear in some reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of MR results. “Medication Review” was the most used terminology, whose main objective is the identification and resolution of DRPs to optimize the drug use. MR practice is mostly comprehended as “intervention”, and its main collaborator is the physician. Moreover, methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. In the light of what was mentioned, it is necessary to come to an international agreement regarding the work process of MR, as a clinical service or practice component, improving, then, the assessment, comparison and optimization of care quality given to patients.
Supporting information
S2 Table. List of excluded studies and reasons for exclusion.
Abbreviation: MR—Medication Review.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210312.s002
(DOC)
S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.
Abbreviations: NA: Not Applicable; U: Unrealized.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210312.s003
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. The authors thanks specially to the researchers of the Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS) for their contribution to this manuscript.
References
- 1.
Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe. Medication review definition approved. 2016 Feb 20 [cited 10 March 2016]. In: Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Website [Internet]. Europe: Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) 2016. http://www.pcne.org/news/35/medication-review-definition-approved.
- 2. Blenkinsopp A, Bond C, Raynor DK. Medication reviews. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(4): 573–580. pmid:22607195
- 3.
Clyne W, Blenkinsopp A, Seal R. A guide to medication review. London: National Prescribing Centre (NPC), 2008.
- 4.
Pharmacy Council of New Zealand. Medicines management: definition, levels, competence framework. Wellington: Pharmacy Council of New Zealand; 2006.
- 5. American Pharmacists Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores Foundation. Medication therapy management in pharmacy practice: core elements of an MTM service model (version 2.0). J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48(3): 341–353.
- 6. Aslani P, Krass I. Adherence: a review of education, research, practice and policy in Australia. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2009;7(1): 1–10.
- 7. Nunes-da-Cunha I, Arguello B, Martinez FM, Fernandez-Llimos F. Comparison of patient-centered care in pharmacy curricula in the United States and Europe. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016;80(5): 83. Available from: https://www.ajpe.org/doi/10.5688/ajpe80583 pmid:27402986
- 8.
Australian Government. Department of Health and Ageing. Domiciliary medication management––home medicines review: helping your patients manage Their Medicines at Home. Canberra: Australian Government; 2005.
- 9.
Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Australian Divisions of General Practice Limited. Home medicines review: information for pharmacy staff. Canberra: Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Australian Divisions of General Practice Limited; 2005.
- 10. Bedouch P, Tessier A, Baudrant M, Labarere J, Foroni L, Calop J, et al. Computerized physician order entry system combined with on-ward pharmacist: analysis of pharmacists’ interventions. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(4): 911–918. pmid:21689216
- 11. Bülow C, Faerch KU, Armandi H, Jensen BN, Sonne J, Christensen HR, et al. Important Aspects of pharmacist-led medication reviews in an acute medical ward. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;122(2): 253–261. pmid:28871627
- 12. Chau SH, Jansen AP, van de Ven PM, Hoogland P, Elders PJ, Hugtenburg JG. Clinical medication reviews in elderly patients with polypharmacy: a cross-sectional study on drug-related problems in the Netherlands. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(1): 46–53. pmid:26597955
- 13. Messerli M, Blozik E, Vriends N, Hersberger KE. Impact of a community pharmacist-led medication review on medicines use in patients on polypharmacy—a prospective randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1): 145. Available from: https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1384-8
- 14. Costa FA, Silvestre L, Periquito C, Carneiro C, Oliveira P, Fernandes AI, et al. Drug-related problems identified in a sample of Portuguese institutionalised elderly patients and pharmacists’ interventions to improve safety and effectiveness of medicines. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016; 3(1): 89–97. pmid:27747806
- 15. Tang MM, Wollsen MG, Aagaard L. Pain monitoring and medication assessment in elderly nursing home residents with dementia. J Res Pharm Pract. 2016;5(2): 126–131. pmid:27162807
- 16. Rose O, Mennemann H, John C, Lautenschläger M, Mertens-Keller D, Richling K, et al. Priority setting and influential factors on acceptance of pharmaceutical recommendations in collaborative medication reviews in an ambulatory care setting—analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial (WestGem-Study). PLoS One. 2016;11(6): e0156304. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156304 pmid:27253380
- 17. Basheti IA, Al-Qudah RA, Obeidat NM, Bulatova NR. Home medication management review in outpatients with chronic diseases in Jordan: a randomized control trial. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(2): 404–413. pmid:26960406
- 18. Chen TF. Pharmacist-Led home medicines review and residential medication management review: the Australian model. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(3): 199–204. pmid:26961696
- 19. Gallagher J, O’Sullivan D, McCarthy S, Gillespie P, Woods N, O’Mahony D, et al. Structured pharmacist review of medication in older hospitalised patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(4): 285–294. pmid:26861468
- 20. McKean M, Pillans P, Scott IA. A medication review and deprescribing method for hospitalised older patients receiving multiple medications. Intern Med J. 2016;46(1): 35–42. pmid:26387783
- 21. Geurts MME, Stewart RE, Brouwers JRBJ, Graeff PA, Gier JJ. Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38: 808–815. pmid:27052212
- 22. Ocampo CC, Garcia-Cardenas V, Martinez-Martinez F, Benrimoj SI, Amariles P, Gastelurrutia MA. Implementation of medication review with follow-up in a Spanish community pharmacy and its achieved outcomes. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(5): 931–940. pmid:26040837
- 23. Nishtala PS, Castelino RL, Peterson GM, Hannan PJ, Salahudeen MS. Residential medication management reviews of antithrombotic therapy in aged care residents with atrial fibrillation: assessment of stroke and bleeding risk. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(3): 279–284. pmid:27062272
- 24. Adams RP, Barton G, Bhattacharya D, Grassby PF, Holland R, Howe A, et al. Supervised pharmacy student-led medication review in primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled pilot study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(11): e009246. Available from: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/11/e009246.full.pdf pmid:26537500
- 25. Hanna M, Larmour I, Wilson S, O’Leary K. The impact of a hospital outreach medication review service on hospital readmission and emergency department attendances. J Pharm Pract Res. 2016;46(2): 112–121.
- 26. Malet-Larrea A, Goyenechea E, García-Cárdenas V, Calvo B, Arteche JM, Aranegui P, Zubeldia JJ, et al. The impact of a medication review with follow-up service on hospital admissions in aged polypharmacy patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(3): 831–838. pmid:27195696
- 27. Jokanovic N, Tan EC, Sudhakaran S, Kirkpatrick CM, Dooley MJ, Ryan-Atwood TE, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: An overview of systematic reviews. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017;13(4): 661–685. pmid:27665364
- 28. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7: 10. Available from: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 pmid:17302989
- 29.
Shaw J, Seal R, Pilling M. Task force on medicines partnership and the national collaborative medicines management services programme. Room for review—a guide to medication review: the agenda for patients, practitioners and managers. London: Medicines partnership; 2002.
- 30.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2016 [cited 2016 Apr 28]. In: MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S. National Library of Medicine 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh.
- 31. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 210. Available from: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 pmid:27919275
- 32. Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Schulz RM. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther. 1993;15(6): 1121–1132. pmid:8111809
- 33. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966; 44: 166–206.
- 34. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12): 1743–1748. pmid:3045356
- 35. Mikton C, Butchart A. Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(5): 353–361. pmid:19551253
- 36.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1989.
- 37. Holland R, Desborough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK. Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(3): 303–316. pmid:18093253
- 38. Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6): 359–373. pmid:23506448
- 39. Kwint HF, Bermingham L, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. The relationship between the extent of collaboration of general practitioners and pharmacists and the implementation of recommendations arising from medication review: a systematic review. Drugs Aging. 2013;30(2): 91–102. pmid:23322285
- 40. Hadi MA, Alldred DP, Briggs M, Munyombwe T, Closs SJ. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication review in chronic pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 2014;30(11): 1006–1014. pmid:24480911
- 41. Hatah E, Braund R, Tordoff J, Duffull SB. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacist-led fee-for-services medication review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;77(1): 102–115. pmid:23594037
- 42. Hohl CM, Wickham ME, Sobolev B, Perry JJ, Sivilotti ML, Garrison S, et al. The effect of early in-hospital medication review on health outcomes: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(1): 51–61. pmid:25581134
- 43. Jokanovic N, Tan EC, van den Bosch D, Kirkpatrick CM, Dooley MJ, Bell JS. Clinical medication review in Australia: a systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016;12(3): 384–418. pmid:26250049
- 44. Loh ZW, Cheen MH, Wee HL. Humanistic and economic outcomes of pharmacist-provided medication review in the community-dwelling elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(6): 621–633. pmid:27696540
- 45. Renaudin P, Boyer L, Esteve MA, Bertault-Peres P, Auquier P, Honore S. Do pharmacist-led medication reviews in hospitals help reduce hospital readmissions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(6): 1660–1673. pmid:27511835
- 46. Thiruchelvam K, Hasan SS, Wong PS, Kairuz T. Residential Aged Care Medication Review to Improve the Quality of Medication Use: A Systematic Review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(1): 87.e1–87.e14. Available from: https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(16)30482-0/pdf.
- 47. Bell S, McLachlan AJ, Aslani P, Whitehead P, Chen TF. Community pharmacy services to optimise the use of medications for mental illness: a systematic review. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2005;2: 29. Available from: https://anzhealthpolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-8462-2-29 pmid:16336646
- 48. Chan P, Grindrod KA, Bougher D, Pasutto FM, Wilgosh C, Eberhart G, et al. A systematic review of remuneration systems for clinical pharmacy care services. Can Pharm J. 2008;141(2): 102–112.
- 49. Nishtala PS, McLachlan AJ, Bell JS, Chen TF. Psychotropic prescribing in long-term care facilities: impact of medication reviews and educational interventions. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16(8): 621–632. pmid:18669940
- 50. Forsetlund L, Gjerberg E, Vist GE. Effect of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate use of drugs in nursing homes: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Geriatrics. 2011;11: 16. Available from: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2318-11-16 pmid:21496345
- 51. Loganathan M, Singh S, Franklin BD, Bottle A, Majeed A. Interventions to optimise prescribing in care homes: systematic review. Age Ageing. 2011;40(2): 150–162. pmid:21262782
- 52. Chen Y, Zhu LL, Zhou Q. Effects of drug pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, characteristics of medication use, and relevant pharmacological interventions on fall risk in elderly patients. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014;10: 437–448. pmid:24966681
- 53. Perraudin C, Bugnon O, Pelletier-Fleury N. Expanding professional pharmacy services in European community setting: Is it cost-effective? A systematic review for health policy considerations. Health Policy. 2016;120(12): 1350–1362. pmid:28228230
- 54. Bulajeva A, Labberton L, Leikola S, Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä M, Geurts MM, de Gier JJ, Airaksinen M. Medication review practices in European countries. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10(5): 731–740. pmid:24661800
- 55.
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines for pharmacists providing Home Medicines Review (HMR) services. Deakin West: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA); 2011.
- 56.
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines for pharmacists providing Residential Medication Management Review (RMMR) and Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) services. Deakin West: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA); 2011.
- 57.
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines for pharmacists providing medicines use review (MedsCheck) and diabetes medication management (Diabetes MedsCheck) services. Deakin West: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA); 2012.
- 58.
Sistema Sanitario Publico Andaluz (Spain). Guía de trabajo para la revisión sistemática de medicación en pacientes polimedicados en Atención Primaria. Andaluz: Sistema Sanitario Publico Andaluz (SSPA); 2013.
- 59.
National Health System (United Kingdom). Guidance on the medicines use review service. Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. United Kingdom: National Health System Employers; 2013.
- 60.
Health and Social Care Board (United Kingdom). Medication review guidance. United Kingdom: Health and Social Care Board, 2016.
- 61. Stewart K, George J, Mc Namara KP, Jackson SL, Peterson GM, Bereznicki LR, et al. A multifaceted pharmacist intervention to improve antihypertensive adherence: a cluster-randomized, controlled trial (HAPPy trial). J Clin Pharm Ther. 2014;39(5): 527–534. pmid:24943987
- 62. Bereznicki LR, van Tienen EC, Stafford A. Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control. Intern Med J. 2016;46(3): 288–294. pmid:26602177
- 63. Palagyi A, Keay L, Harper J, Potter J, Lindley RI. Barricades and brickwalls—a qualitative study exploring perceptions of medication use and deprescribing in long-term care. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16: 15. Available from: https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-016-0181-x pmid:26767619
- 64. López TM, Camacho JCD, Morgado DP, Camacho MLC, Serna JCM, Rubio SL. A review of the medication in polymedicated elderly with vascular risk: a randomised controlled trial. Aten Primaria. 2012;44(8): 453–460. pmid:22341703
- 65. Blundell DB. Revisión de medicación según criterios STOPP/START en pacientes mayores del servicio de sistema personalizado de dosificación de medicamentos de una farmacia comunitária. Farmacéuticos comunitarios. 2015;7(2): 31–36.
- 66. Patel CH, Zimmerman KM, Fonda JR, Linsky A. Medication complexity, medication number, and their relationships to medication discrepancies. Ann Pharmacother. 2016;50(7): 534–540. pmid:27147704
- 67. Wang J, Shih YCT, Qin Y, Young T, Thomas Z, Spivey CA, et al. Trends in Medicare Part D medication therapy management eligibility criteria. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2015;8(5): 247–255. pmid:26380030
- 68. Leikola SN, Tuomainen L, Peura S, Laurikainen A, Lyles A, Savela E, et al. Comprehensive medication review: development of a collaborative procedure. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(4): 510–514. pmid:22711383
- 69. Koskela T, Sandström S, Mäkinen J, Liira H. User perspectives on an electronic decision-support tool performing comprehensive medication reviews—a focus group study with physicians and nurses. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;166: 6. Available from: https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-016-0245-z
- 70. Ramsbottom HF, Fitzpatrick R, Rutter P. Post discharge medicines use review service for older patients: recruitment issues in a feasibility study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(2): 208–212. pmid:26746903
- 71. Rodgers RM, Gammie SM, Loo RL, Corlett SA, Krska J. Comparison of pharmacist and public views and experiences of community pharmacy medicines-related services in England. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10: 1749–58. pmid:27672313
- 72. Benrimoj SI, Feletto E, Gastelurrutia MA, Martinez MF, Faus MJ. Un enfoque holístico e integrado de la implantación de los servicios farmacéutico cognitivos. Ars Pharmaceutica. 2010;51(2): 69–87.
- 73. Correr CJ, Rotta I, Salgado TM, Fernandez-Llimos F. Tipos de serviços farmacêuticos clínicos: o que dizem as revisões sistemáticas? Acta Farmacêutica Portuguesa. 2013;2(1): 21–34.
- 74.
Pan American Health Organization. Primary health care based pharmaceutical services: PAHO/WHO position paper. Washington: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); 2013.
- 75. Franklin BD, van Mil J. Defining clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27(3): 137. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11096-005-7060-4 pmid:16096876
- 76. Rodis J, Pruchnicki MC, Casper KA, Bennett MS, Mehta BH. The importance of terminology in the profession of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(4): 74. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720370/
- 77. Ahmed SI, Hasan SS. Clinical pharmacy and pharmaceutical care: a need to homogenize the concepts. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(10): 193g. pmid:21436940
- 78. Scahill SL, Atif M, Babar ZU. Defining pharmacy and its practice: a conceptual model for an international audience. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6: 121–129. pmid:29354558
- 79. van Mil JW, Henman M. Terminology, the importance of defining. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3): 709–713. pmid:27073076
- 80. Pintor-Marmol A, Baena MI, Fajardo PC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Saez-Benito L, Garcia-Cardenas MV, et al. Terms used in patient safety related to medication: a literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(8): 799–809. pmid:22678709
- 81.
International Pharmaceutical Federation. The Tokyo Declaration: Standards for quality of pharmacy services. Tokyo: Federation Internationale Pharmaceutique (FIP); 1993.
- 82.
World Health Organization. WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations—WHO Technical Report Series, no. 885—Thirty-fifth Report. Annex 7: Good manufacturing practices: supplementary guidelines for the manufacture of pharmaceutical excipients. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 1999.
- 83.
World Health Organization; International Pharmaceutical Federation. WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations—WHO Technical Report Series, no. 961—Fortieth-fifth Report. Annex 8: Good pharmacy practice: standards for quality of pharmacy services (joint FIP/WHO). Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO); 2011.
- 84. Kötter T, Blozik E, Scherer M. Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators—a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2012;7: 21. Available from: https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-7-21 pmid:22436067
- 85. Santos GA Júnior, Marques TC, Silva ROS, Silvestre CC, Lyra DP, Silva FA. Quality indicators to medication review services: evaluation of the structure. Lat Am J Pharm. 2015;34: 1172–1179.
- 86. Weiss BD, Brega AG, LeBlanc WG, Mabachi NM, Barnard J, Albright K, et al. Improving the effectiveness of medication review: guidance from the health literacy universal precautions toolkit. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(1): 18–23. pmid:26769873
- 87. Leikola SN, Virolainen J, Tuomainen L, Tuominen RK, Airaksinen MS. Comprehensive medication reviews for elderly patients: findings and recommendations to physicians. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2012;52(5): 630–633.
- 88. Vouri SM, Stranges PM, Burke JM, Micek S, Pitlick MK, Wenger P. The importance of research during pharmacy residency training. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2015;7(6): 892–898. pmid:26594260
- 89. Moles RJ, Stehlik P. Pharmacy practice in Australia. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(5): 218–226.
- 90. Knoer SJ, Eck AR, Lucas AJ. A review of American pharmacy: education, training, technology, and practice. J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2016;2: 32. Available from: https://jphcs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40780-016-0066-3 pmid:27843574
- 91.
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and key elements for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree (“Standards 2016”). Chicago: Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE); 2015.
- 92. Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Kravitz RL, Fein S, Wenger NS. How Do Physicians conduct medication reviews? J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(12): 1296–1302. pmid:19813063
- 93. Griffiths R, Johnson M, Piper M, Langdon R. A nursing intervention for the quality use of medicines by elderly community clients. Int J Nurs Pract. 2004;10(4): 166–176. pmid:15265227
- 94.
Federal Council of Pharmacy (Brazil). Pharmaceutical prescription and the clinical attributions of the pharmacist. Brazil: Federal Council of Pharmacy (CFF); 2016.
- 95.
Brito GC. Serviços clínicos farmacêuticos em unidades do programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil do estado de Sergipe: implantação, implementação e consolidação. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Sergipe. 2015. https://ri.ufs.br/bitstream/riufs/3592/1/GISELLE_CARVALHO_BRITO.pdf
- 96.
Marques TC. Avaliação de indicadores de estrutura e processo na implementação de um serviço de Revisão da Farmacoterapia. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Sergipe. 2015. https://ri.ufs.br/bitstream/riufs/3572/1/TATIANE_CRISTINA_MARQUES.pdf
- 97. Rigoni CC, Brito ES, Alano GM, Galato D. Pharmacotherapy review: a proposal to improve medication adherence among hypertensive patients. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2015;51(4): 763–773.
- 98. Casserlie LM, Mager NAP. Pharmacists’ perceptions of advancing public health priorities through medication therapy management. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(3): 792. Available from: https://www.pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/792/464
- 99. Dolovich L, Consiglio G, MacKeigan L, Abrahamyan L, Pechlivanoglou P, Rac VE, et al. Uptake of the MedsCheck annual medication review service in Ontario community pharmacies between 2007 and 2013. Can Pharm J. 2016;149(5): 293–302.
- 100. Karani MV, Haddad Y, Lee R. The role of pharmacists in preventing falls among America’s older adults. Front Public Health. 2016;4: 250. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00250 pmid:27882314
- 101. SHPA Commitee of Specialty Practice in Clinical Pharmacy. SHPA Standards of practice for clinical pharmacy services. J Pharm Pract Res. 2005;35(2): 122–146.
- 102. Suggett E, Marriott J. Risk factors associated with the requirement for pharmaceutical intervention in the hospital setting: a systematic review of the Literature. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3(3): 241–263. pmid:27747829
- 103.
Pan American Health Organization. Brazilian consensus on pharmaceutical care: proposal. Brasília: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO); 2002.
- 104.
Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2012.
- 105. Jorgenson D, Dalton D, Farrell B, Tsuyuki RT, Dolovich L. Guidelines for pharmacists integrating into primary care teams. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2013; 146(6): 342–352.
- 106. Kelly DV, Young S, Phillips L, Clark D. Patient attitudes regarding the role of the pharmacist and interest in expanded pharmacist services. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2014;147(4): 239–247.
- 107. Huiskes VJB, Burger DM, van den Ende CMH, van den Bemt BJF. Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18: 5. Available from: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0577-x pmid:28095780
- 108. Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(1): 32–42. pmid:22183578
- 109. Aguiar PM, Brito GD, Correr CJ, Lyra DP Júnior, Storpirtis S. Exploring the quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist interventions in patients with diabetes: an overview. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(7): 887–996. pmid:24692605
- 110. Rotta I, Salgado TM, Silva ML, Correr CJ, Fernandez-Llimos F. Effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services: an overview of systematic reviews (2000–2010). Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(5): 687–697. pmid:26001356
- 111. Wegewitz U, Weikert B, Fishta A, Jacobs A, Pieper D. Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1): 111. Available from: https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-016-0183-6 pmid:27566440
- 112. Burda BU, Holmer HK, Norris SL. Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 58. Available from: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0237-1 pmid:27072548