农村养老院跨学科团队中逐步药师主导的药物评价服务

K. Halvorsen, Torunn Stadeløkken, B. Garcia
{"title":"农村养老院跨学科团队中逐步药师主导的药物评价服务","authors":"K. Halvorsen, Torunn Stadeløkken, B. Garcia","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy7040148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The provision of responsible medication therapy to old nursing home residents with comorbidities is a difficult task and requires extensive knowledge about optimal pharmacotherapy for different conditions. We describe a stepwise pharmacist-led medication review service in combination with an interdisciplinary team collaboration in order to identify, resolve, and prevent medication related problems (MRPs). Methods: The service included residents from four rural Norwegian nursing homes during August 2016–January 2017. All residents were eligible if they (or next of kin) supplied oral consent. The interdisciplinary medication review service comprised four steps: (1) patient and medication history taking; (2) systematic medication review; (3) interdisciplinary case conference; and (4) follow-up of pharmaceutical care plan. The pharmacist collected information about previous and present medication use, and clinical and laboratory values necessary for the medication review. The nurses collected information about possible symptoms related to adverse drug reactions. The pharmacist conducted the medication reviews, identified medication-related problems (MRPs) which were discussed at case conferences with the responsible physician and the responsible nurses. The main outcome measures were number and types of MRPs, percentage agreement between pharmacists and physicians and factors associated with MRPs. Results: The service was delivered for 151 (94%) nursing home residents. The pharmacist identified 675 MRPs in 146 (97%) medication lists (mean 4.0, SD 2.6, range 0–13). The MRPs most frequently identified concerned ‘unnecessary drug’ (22%), ‘too high dosage’ (17%) and ‘drug interactions’ (16%). The physicians agreed upon 64% of the pharmacist recommendations, and action was taken immediately for 32% of these. We identified no association between the number of MRPs and sex (p = 0.485), but between the number of MRPs, and the number of medications and the individual nursing homes. Conclusion: The pharmacist-led medication review service in the nursing homes was highly successfully piloted with many solved and prevented MRPs in interdisciplinary collaboration between the pharmacist, physicians, and nurses. Implementation of this service as a standard in all four nursing homes seems necessary and feasible. If such a service is implemented, effects related to patient outcomes, interdisciplinary collaboration, and health economy should be studied.","PeriodicalId":19920,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy: Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Stepwise Pharmacist-Led Medication Review Service in Interdisciplinary Teams in Rural Nursing Homes\",\"authors\":\"K. Halvorsen, Torunn Stadeløkken, B. Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/pharmacy7040148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The provision of responsible medication therapy to old nursing home residents with comorbidities is a difficult task and requires extensive knowledge about optimal pharmacotherapy for different conditions. We describe a stepwise pharmacist-led medication review service in combination with an interdisciplinary team collaboration in order to identify, resolve, and prevent medication related problems (MRPs). Methods: The service included residents from four rural Norwegian nursing homes during August 2016–January 2017. All residents were eligible if they (or next of kin) supplied oral consent. The interdisciplinary medication review service comprised four steps: (1) patient and medication history taking; (2) systematic medication review; (3) interdisciplinary case conference; and (4) follow-up of pharmaceutical care plan. The pharmacist collected information about previous and present medication use, and clinical and laboratory values necessary for the medication review. The nurses collected information about possible symptoms related to adverse drug reactions. The pharmacist conducted the medication reviews, identified medication-related problems (MRPs) which were discussed at case conferences with the responsible physician and the responsible nurses. The main outcome measures were number and types of MRPs, percentage agreement between pharmacists and physicians and factors associated with MRPs. Results: The service was delivered for 151 (94%) nursing home residents. The pharmacist identified 675 MRPs in 146 (97%) medication lists (mean 4.0, SD 2.6, range 0–13). The MRPs most frequently identified concerned ‘unnecessary drug’ (22%), ‘too high dosage’ (17%) and ‘drug interactions’ (16%). The physicians agreed upon 64% of the pharmacist recommendations, and action was taken immediately for 32% of these. We identified no association between the number of MRPs and sex (p = 0.485), but between the number of MRPs, and the number of medications and the individual nursing homes. Conclusion: The pharmacist-led medication review service in the nursing homes was highly successfully piloted with many solved and prevented MRPs in interdisciplinary collaboration between the pharmacist, physicians, and nurses. Implementation of this service as a standard in all four nursing homes seems necessary and feasible. If such a service is implemented, effects related to patient outcomes, interdisciplinary collaboration, and health economy should be studied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacy: Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacy: Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7040148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy: Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7040148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:为有合并症的养老院老人提供负责任的药物治疗是一项艰巨的任务,需要广泛的关于不同情况下最佳药物治疗的知识。我们描述了一种逐步药剂师主导的药物审查服务,结合跨学科团队合作,以识别、解决和预防药物相关问题(mrp)。方法:该服务包括2016年8月至2017年1月期间来自挪威四个农村养老院的居民。如果他们(或近亲)口头同意,所有居民都有资格。跨学科药物审查服务包括四个步骤:(1)患者和用药史的调查;(2)系统的用药评价;(3)跨学科案例会议;(4)药学服务计划的随访。药剂师收集以往和现在的用药信息,以及药物审查所需的临床和实验室值。护士收集与药物不良反应有关的可能症状的信息。药剂师进行药物审查,确定药物相关问题(mrp),并在病例会议上与负责的医生和负责的护士讨论。主要结局指标为mrp的数量和类型、药师和医师之间的一致性百分比以及与mrp相关的因素。结果:为151名(94%)养老院居民提供了服务。药剂师在146份(97%)药物清单中确定了675个mrp(平均4.0,标准差2.6,范围0-13)。最常见的mrp涉及“不必要的药物”(22%)、“剂量太高”(17%)和“药物相互作用”(16%)。医生同意了64%的药剂师建议,并立即采取了32%的行动。我们发现mrp的数量与性别之间没有关联(p = 0.485),但mrp的数量与药物数量和个体养老院之间存在关联。结论:药师主导的养老院用药审评服务在药师、医师和护士的跨学科合作中取得了较好的效果,解决和预防了许多mrp问题。将这项服务作为一项标准在所有四家养老院实施似乎是必要和可行的。如果实施这种服务,应研究与患者预后、跨学科合作和卫生经济相关的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Stepwise Pharmacist-Led Medication Review Service in Interdisciplinary Teams in Rural Nursing Homes
Background: The provision of responsible medication therapy to old nursing home residents with comorbidities is a difficult task and requires extensive knowledge about optimal pharmacotherapy for different conditions. We describe a stepwise pharmacist-led medication review service in combination with an interdisciplinary team collaboration in order to identify, resolve, and prevent medication related problems (MRPs). Methods: The service included residents from four rural Norwegian nursing homes during August 2016–January 2017. All residents were eligible if they (or next of kin) supplied oral consent. The interdisciplinary medication review service comprised four steps: (1) patient and medication history taking; (2) systematic medication review; (3) interdisciplinary case conference; and (4) follow-up of pharmaceutical care plan. The pharmacist collected information about previous and present medication use, and clinical and laboratory values necessary for the medication review. The nurses collected information about possible symptoms related to adverse drug reactions. The pharmacist conducted the medication reviews, identified medication-related problems (MRPs) which were discussed at case conferences with the responsible physician and the responsible nurses. The main outcome measures were number and types of MRPs, percentage agreement between pharmacists and physicians and factors associated with MRPs. Results: The service was delivered for 151 (94%) nursing home residents. The pharmacist identified 675 MRPs in 146 (97%) medication lists (mean 4.0, SD 2.6, range 0–13). The MRPs most frequently identified concerned ‘unnecessary drug’ (22%), ‘too high dosage’ (17%) and ‘drug interactions’ (16%). The physicians agreed upon 64% of the pharmacist recommendations, and action was taken immediately for 32% of these. We identified no association between the number of MRPs and sex (p = 0.485), but between the number of MRPs, and the number of medications and the individual nursing homes. Conclusion: The pharmacist-led medication review service in the nursing homes was highly successfully piloted with many solved and prevented MRPs in interdisciplinary collaboration between the pharmacist, physicians, and nurses. Implementation of this service as a standard in all four nursing homes seems necessary and feasible. If such a service is implemented, effects related to patient outcomes, interdisciplinary collaboration, and health economy should be studied.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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