Community pharmacist led medication reviews in the UK: A scoping review of the medicines use review and the new medicine service literatures |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Health Sciences, ARRC Building, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK;2. School of Pharmacy, University College London, 29-39 Brunswick Square, London, WC1N 1AX, UK;3. School of Pharmacy, University of Reading, Harry Nursten Building, PO Box 226, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AP, UK;1. Collaboration for Outcomes Research & Evaluation (CORE), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;2. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;3. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand;4. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada;1. Post-Graduate Program of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Parana, Av. Prof. Lothário Meissner, 652, Jardim Botânico, 80210-170 Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil;2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, 428 Church St, 48109 Ann Arbor, MI, USA;3. Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Parana, Av. Prof. Lothário Meissner, 652, Jardim Botânico, 80210-170 Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil;4. Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Department of Social-Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 1649-003 Lisbon, Portugal;1. Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4215, Australia;2. School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia;3. School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia;1. Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz (IUEM), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Campus Universitário, Quinta da Granja, Monte da Caparica, 2829-511, Caparica, Portugal;2. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Switzerland;3. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slovenia;1. Section for Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, 2100 København Ø, Denmark;2. Department of Research & Development, The Danish College of Pharmacy Practice (Pharmakon), Milnersvej 42, 3400 Hillerød, Denmark |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundMedicines Use Reviews (MURs) and the New Medicine Service (NMS) are services delivered by UK community pharmacists to improve adherence, improve patient understanding of their medicines and reduce medicines wastage.AimIn this scoping review we aim to identify, map and critically examine the nature of existing empirical evidence in peer reviewed journals relating to MUR and NMS consultations.MethodSystematic searches identified the available MUR and NMS empirical literature. We sought data on barriers and facilitators to conducting MUR or NMS consultations, the perceptions of pharmacists and patients, the conduct of consultations, and outcomes of consultations. Searches from 2005 (when MURs were introduced) to May 2018 were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus databases. Data were extracted into Excel for examination of study characteristics, participant characteristics, type of intervention/services delivered and key study quantitative and/or qualitative findings.ResultsForty-one papers from 37 studies met the inclusion criteria: 28 papers were of MURs, 10 of NMS and 3 for both services. Studies focused on the introduction and implementation of these services, with little attention to outcomes for patients; effectiveness was not evaluated beyond in a single NMS RCT. Observational data indicated that pharmacists and patients view MURs and the NMS positively, despite challenges implementing these services and apparent lack of communication between pharmacists and GPs. Consultations were reported to be short, typically 10–12 min, characterised by limited engagement with patients and their health problems. The extent and nature of advice on health behaviours during consultations or other content was rarely examined.ConclusionThe research literature on MURs and the NMS has developed slowly. There is much scope for further research attention to developing more patient-centred care. |
| |
| Keywords: | Community pharmacy Medicines use review (MUR) New medicine service (NMS) Scoping review |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
