• J Eval Clin Pract · Oct 2020

    Evaluation of process indicators of a medication review service between pharmacists and physicians.

    • Tatiane C Marques, Rafaella de Oliveira Santos Silva, Genival A Dos Santos Júnior, Francisco C de Jesus Júnior, Carina C Silvestre, Kérilin S S Rocha, Chiara E da Rocha, Giselle de Carvalho Brito, and Divaldo P de Lyra-Jr.
    • Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil.
    • J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Oct 1; 26 (5): 1448-1456.

    Rationale, Aims And ObjectivesLiterature have showed inconclusive or contradictory results regarding medication review services effectiveness in optimizing process indicators. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the process indicators of a medication review service between pharmacists and physicians.MethodThis quasi-experimental study was conducted between March 2013 and February 2014 with patients who were receiving care in a medication review service in a teaching hospital in northeastern Brazil. The main process indicators were number of pharmaceutical consultations; identification and resolution of drug-related problems (DRP) and pharmaceutical interventions that were classified according to type and degree of acceptance. Descriptive statistics were used to report data. The statistical significance of the association between variables was evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. The 95% confidence interval was considered, and differences were deemed statistically significant if P ≤ .05.ResultsA total of 146 patients attended the medication review service. The number of consultations per patient ranged from one to five (2.1 ± 1.1). The service identified 366 DRP, most of which were indication (67.5%). Patients who had four to five pharmaceutical consultations were 1.14 times more likely to have their DRP identified (χ2 = 33.83, P < .0001). Of the DRP identified, 183 (42.33%) were resolved. Patients who had between one and two pharmaceutical consultations were 1.22 times more likely not to have their DRP resolved compared with the group with more than three consultations (χ2 = 3.44, P < .05). Of the 173 pharmaceutical interventions made to the medical students and physicians, the majority (98.7%) was accepted.ConclusionThe collaborative medication review service optimized the process indicators. Drug-related problems identification and resolution required more than three pharmaceutical consultations. Most of the pharmaceutical interventions were accepted by prescribers. Thus, collaborative medication review services may be fundamental to the construction of more effective and safe health systems.© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…