Structured medication reviews for patients with polypharmacy in primary care: a cross-sectional study in North West London, UK.

Linwei Li, Geva Greenfield, Benedict W J Hayhoe, Derryn Lovett, Vesselin Novov, Azeem Majeed, Paul Aylin, Hadar Zaman, Thomas Woodcock
{"title":"Structured medication reviews for patients with polypharmacy in primary care: a cross-sectional study in North West London, UK.","authors":"Linwei Li, Geva Greenfield, Benedict W J Hayhoe, Derryn Lovett, Vesselin Novov, Azeem Majeed, Paul Aylin, Hadar Zaman, Thomas Woodcock","doi":"10.1177/20542704251325056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify the number and characteristics of patients with polypharmacy receiving structured medication reviews (SMRs) and medication reviews in primary care in 2022, and to evaluate whether the provision of these services is equitable across different demographic and socio-economic groups.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary care networks in North West London, UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults registered with a general practitioner (GP) and regularly prescribed at least five medicines or more.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Receipt of at least one SMR and any kind of medication review during the study period (2022).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 515,042 adults regularly prescribed with medication, 167,482 were regularly prescribed at least five medicines, defined as polypharmacy. 53.3% (89,220) of these patients received at least one kind of medication review and 17.2% (11,954) of them received SMRs. Patients who were males, black, more affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive medication reviews, while those who were males, less affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive SMRs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although polypharmacy was common in North West London, only about half of eligible patients received medication reviews, and only 17.2% received SMRs. Different distributions of medication reviews and SMRs by demographic and socio-economic characteristics may indicate inequities in the provision of these services. Policy makers should consider effective ways to incentivise the equitable provision of SMRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":17674,"journal":{"name":"JRSM Open","volume":"16 4","pages":"20542704251325056"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963712/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JRSM Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704251325056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the number and characteristics of patients with polypharmacy receiving structured medication reviews (SMRs) and medication reviews in primary care in 2022, and to evaluate whether the provision of these services is equitable across different demographic and socio-economic groups.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: Primary care networks in North West London, UK.

Participants: Adults registered with a general practitioner (GP) and regularly prescribed at least five medicines or more.

Main outcome measures: Receipt of at least one SMR and any kind of medication review during the study period (2022).

Results: Among 515,042 adults regularly prescribed with medication, 167,482 were regularly prescribed at least five medicines, defined as polypharmacy. 53.3% (89,220) of these patients received at least one kind of medication review and 17.2% (11,954) of them received SMRs. Patients who were males, black, more affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive medication reviews, while those who were males, less affluent, and frailer, were more likely to receive SMRs.

Conclusions: Although polypharmacy was common in North West London, only about half of eligible patients received medication reviews, and only 17.2% received SMRs. Different distributions of medication reviews and SMRs by demographic and socio-economic characteristics may indicate inequities in the provision of these services. Policy makers should consider effective ways to incentivise the equitable provision of SMRs.

针对基层医疗机构多药合用患者的结构化药物审查:英国伦敦西北部的横断面研究。
目的确定2022年在初级医疗中接受结构化用药审查(SMR)和用药审查的多药合用患者的数量和特征,并评估这些服务的提供在不同人口和社会经济群体中是否公平:设计:横断面研究:参与者:在全科医生处登记的成年人:向全科医生(GP)登记并定期开具至少五种或更多药物处方的成年人:主要结果测量:在研究期间(2022 年)接受至少一次 SMR 和任何类型的药物审查:在 515,042 名定期开药的成年人中,167,482 人至少定期开了五种药,被定义为多重用药。这些患者中有 53.3%(89220 人)接受过至少一种药物治疗,其中 17.2%(11954 人)接受过 SMR。男性、黑人、较富裕和较虚弱的患者更有可能接受药物审查,而男性、较不富裕和较虚弱的患者则更有可能接受 SMR:结论:虽然伦敦西北部的多重用药现象很普遍,但只有约一半的符合条件的患者接受了药物审查,只有 17.2% 的患者接受了 SMR。按人口和社会经济特征划分的药物复查和SMR的不同分布可能表明在提供这些服务方面存在不公平现象。政策制定者应考虑采取有效方法,激励公平提供 SMR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JRSM Open is a peer reviewed online-only journal that follows the open-access publishing model. It is a companion journal to the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The journal publishes research papers, research letters, clinical and methodological reviews, and case reports. Our aim is to inform practice and policy making in clinical medicine. The journal has an international and multispecialty readership that includes primary care and public health professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信