Next Article in Journal
Associations between Sleep and Mental Health in Adolescents: Results from the UK Millennium Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Feedback Form and Its Role in Improving the Quality of Trauma Care
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph19031867
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Pharmacists’ Willingness to Conduct Medication Use Reviews in Poland

by
Piotr Merks
1,
Urszula Religioni
2,3,*,
Magdalena Waszyk-Nowaczyk
4,
Justyna Kaźmierczak
5,
Artur Białoszewski
6,
Eliza Blicharska
7,
Anna Kowalczuk
8 and
Agnieszka Neumann-Podczaska
9
1
Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, 01-938 Warsaw, Poland
2
Collegium of Business Administration, Warsaw School of Economics, 02-513 Warsaw, Poland
3
School of Public Health, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education of Warsaw, 01-826 Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Pharmacy Practice Division, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-780 Poznan, Poland
5
Zdrowit sp. z o.o., Pharmacy Chain, ul. Diamentowa 3, 41-940 Piekary Śląskie, Poland
6
Department of the Prevention of Environmental Hazards, Allergology and Immunology, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland
7
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, Chodźki 4a St., 20-093 Lublin, Poland
8
National Institute of Medicine, 00-725 Warsaw, Poland
9
Chair and Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-245 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(3), 1867; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031867
Submission received: 10 December 2021 / Revised: 3 February 2022 / Accepted: 4 February 2022 / Published: 7 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health Care Sciences & Services)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction. Pharmacists play an important role in healthcare. Their functions are evolving and, in many countries, they actively participate in interdisciplinary patient treatment. One of the most common services provided by pharmacists as part of pharmaceutical care in community pharmacies involves medication reviews. Objective. The objective of this study was to evaluate the readiness of pharmacists to conduct medication reviews in community pharmacies. Materials and methods. This study comprises 493 pharmacists from community pharmacies in Poland. A questionnaire (developed for the purposes of this study) was used. It consisted of eight questions regarding readiness to conduct medication reviews, along with personal data. Results. A total of 63.9% of the pharmacists were ready to conduct medication reviews, and 23.1% already had experience in this area. Participants were of the opinion that this service should be funded by the Ministry of Health or a third-party public payer, and overall was valued by the participants at PLN 169.04 (SD = 280.77) net per patient. Conclusions. Pharmacists in Poland have expressed their readiness to conduct medical reviews. Implementation of this service in community pharmacies in Poland can have a significant impact on optimising patient health outcomes.

1. Introduction

Throughout the years, the roles and perceptions of pharmacists in healthcare have evolved. Pharmacists not only dispense medicinal products, they also, in cooperation with therapeutic teams, have an active part in the patient treatment process [1,2,3]. Pharmacists, as one of the largest groups among medical professions, play an important role in public health in certain countries [1]. Studies show that the active participation of pharmacists in patient treatment, along with the development of pharmaceutical care, significantly improve patient health outcomes, compared to standard therapies [4,5]. Although in many countries the roles of pharmacists are much more developed [3], pharmacists in Poland have expressed their readiness to expand the scope of services they offer in community pharmacies to include, e.g., vaccinations [6]. This is particularly significant due to the potential of pharmacies in Poland (approximately 13,300 community pharmacies and 1300 pharmacy outlets, covering 57% of individual and 43% of chain pharmacies) [7], and the relatively large number of pharmacists (approximately 26,700 pharmacy masters and 1.85 pharmacists per pharmacy) [8]. In Poland, despite the large role of community pharmacies, the provision of pharmaceutical care services is not reimbursed, except for the reimbursement of the ex-tempore preparation (pharmacy compounding), and there are currently no publicly-funded pilots.
In 2021, government and science representatives prepared a report titled “Pharmaceutical Care” on the main assumptions of pharmaceutical care in Poland [9]. Pharmacist medication reviews or medicine use reviews (MUR) were considered the fundamental pillars of pharmaceutical care. A medication review is the primary tool of pharmaceutical care provided in pharmacies in Europe [10,11]. According to the definition of the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe from 2018, a medication review is a structured evaluation of a patient’s medicines with the aim of optimising medicine use and improving health outcomes [12]. This entails detecting drug-related problems and recommending interventions.
A medication review is usually a structured interview with a patient, aimed at increasing patient knowledge about their medications and optimising their pharmacotherapy [13]. It can encompass medications administered by the patient, including those recommended by the doctor and used in the course of self-medication, as well as dietary supplements and foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses [14,15]. This situation is particularly important in the context of the lack of a general information system with complete patient medical records, which can lead to specialists lacking knowledge about products prescribed by other doctors. Medication reviews can play a significant role in the face of extensively used polypharmacy and self-medication [12,16,17], particularly among elderly people [18,19].
Studies to date indicate that the implementation of medication reviews allows detecting medication errors in patient treatments [20,21], which is of great importance when one considers that about 15.4% of hospital admissions are due to drug-related problems, and that almost half of them can be avoided [22,23]. Medication reviews also improve the disease management process and a patient’s quality of life, increase a patient’s knowledge on medications, and reduce the global costs of treatment [24,25].
Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate pharmacists’ readiness to conduct medication reviews in community pharmacies in Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was carried out between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, among pharmacists from community pharmacies in Poland, prior to the official announcement of a MUR pilot project run by the Ministry of Health in Poland. The research tool was an anonymous online questionnaire consisting of 8 questions regarding readiness to conduct medication reviews (experience in conducting medication reviews; medication reviews service plan; estimated time of medication reviews in contact with the patient; estimated preparation time for medication reviews; expectations as to the remuneration for the performance of a medication review; the institution that should pay for medication reviews; opinion on patient cooperation for a MUR; a proposal for a fee to be paid by the patient for a MUR), along with personal data (sex, age, specialisation, academic degree, job seniority, place of work). Our questions related to both simple and comprehensive (complex) medication reviews. For the purposes of the study, we considered a simple medicine review as a retrospective evaluation of treatment along with a short interview with a patient, and a comprehensive review consisted of information about medications, clinical data, and a long interview with a patient.
Our aim was to also try and assess the remuneration (for the performance of a medication review) that pharmacists would like to receive. This is of particular importance, taking into account that reimbursements of the drug review service are planned in Poland. Our goal was for pharmacists to set a remuneration that would reflect their workload for the performance of a MUR.
For reach respondent, we used direct contacts to organizations representing the Polish Pharmacy Trade Union (ZZPF). Emails were sent directly to pharmacist members via an email and through organisation Facebook and Twitter profile. The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń at the Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz.
The results of the study were produced using descriptive statistics.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

The study participants involved 493 pharmacists, comprising 78.7% women and 21.3% men. The mean age of respondents was 36.17 years (SD = 8.11). The youngest respondent was 23 years old and the oldest respondent was 66 years old. Nearly every fourth respondent had a specialisation, of which pharmacy prevailed. Almost all of the respondents held a master’s degree in pharmacy. The mean job seniority was 11.07 years (SD = 8.21; minimum 0 years, maximum 43 years). The majority of pharmacies were located in cities, and the lowest number of pharmacies were in villages. Detailed data on the characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Readiness to Conduct Medication Reviews

In total, 23.1% of the pharmacists reported experiences conducting medication reviews and 63.9% were ready to provide this service to patients (Table 2).
According to most of the respondents, medication reviews should be funded by a third-party payer (81.3%), or the Ministry of Health (61.5), the social insurance institution (21.1%), additional insurance (20.9), employers (14.0%), or patients (3%).
According to the pharmacists, if the cost of the medication review was to be borne by the patients, then the price should be about PLN1 (PLN exchange rate to USD and Euro as of 18 August, 2021: PLN 1 = USD 0.26; PLN 1 = EUR 0.22) 37.20 (SD = 45.45; minimum 0, maximum 400, mode 20).
While responding to the question: “What are your expectations regarding the remuneration for conducting a medication review? Please provide a net amount for 1 review, including 2 patient visits and an analysis of pharmacotherapy (in PLN)”, the pharmacists indicated that this remuneration should be about M = PLN 169.04 (SD = 280.77; minimum 5, maximum 5000, mode 100).
According to pharmacists, the average time needed to complete one medication review is 21.5 min during the first visit and 16.4 min during the second visit. For a comprehensive review, these values were 40.8 min and 30.5 min for the first and second visits, respectively (Table 3).
The estimated amount of time spent on preparing for a short medication review was valued at approximately 29.7 min during the first visit and 23 min during the second visit. In order to prepare for a comprehensive medication review, the pharmacists needed 53.3 min during the first visit and 41.9 min during the second visit (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Our study indicates that 63.9% of the pharmacists are ready to conduct medication reviews, and nearly every fourth respondent has experience in this area. Due to the lack of reimbursement of these services in Poland under the current law, pharmacists with experience in drug reviews could obtain them by participating in pilot projects.
The results are particularly important, taking into account the trust of Poles in pharmacists, as well as the openness toward providing pharmaceutical care services in community pharmacies [26]. The openness of Polish pharmacists is also of great importance, as also confirmed by other studies conducted in community pharmacies in Poland [6].
According to the plans, medication reviews conducted in Poland [9] will include an interview with a patient and a complete review of administered medications. Their objective will be to evaluate the validity of treatment, detect potential drug-related problems, and optimise treatment outcomes. It is recommended that elderly people at risk of polypharmacy (simultaneous administration of five or more medications) and patients with medical orders for reviews (e.g., after changing the course of treatment ordered by a doctor) should be automatically qualified for reviews.
To date, several pilot medication review programmes have been carried out in community pharmacies in Poland, including OF-Senior [27], where 291 medication reviews were conducted among patients aged ≥ 65 years with severe polypharmacy (administering ≥10 pharmaceutical products).
The respondents claimed that the total time required to prepare for a simple review (two visits) was approximately 53 min, and for a complex review—approximately 95 min, with less time spent on preparation for the second visit. The duration of a medication review in contact with a patient was estimated at about 38 min for a simple review (the total time of two visits), and 71 min for a complex review.
Taking into account the length of preparation and duration of MR, the scope of the medication review to be introduced in the first stage of implementation of this service in Poland should be carefully considered. It is also important to consider specific groups of patients who will be able to be referred to comprehensive MR services (e.g., the elderly, with multiple diseases). The scope of medication reviews should form the basis for further research and discussion in Poland.
Apart from checking the relevance of administered medications and detecting adverse effects, medication reviews can include suggestions for using (or stop using) dietary supplements, patient education regarding their treatments, and improving adherence. This is of particular importance in the situation of large patient access to medicines, mainly outside the pharmacy, which is characteristic in Poland [14]. Studies show that pharmaceutical services reduce the risk of potential adverse effects, improve patient treatment outcomes [28], the level of medication adherence [29], and the effects of therapy [30]. Moreover, medication reviews lead to rationalisation of treatment costs, which is of particular importance in the face of constantly growing expenses for healthcare, including medications and solving drug-related problems [25,31].
While conducting medication reviews, pharmacists have the opportunity to optimise expenses by suggesting changes to a treatment plan (e.g., when it is possible to switch from intravenous to oral therapy), indicating ceasing a specific medication if its administration can cause drug-related problems. Any of these situations will influence the costs and contribute to avoiding additional expenses in the event of adverse reactions [25]. As a result, medication reviews can prevent hospitalisation and the deterioration of patient health. Studies indicate that, even when hospitalised, more than 16% of patients can experience adverse effects [32], which extends hospital stays by two days on average and generates additional costs of USD 2000–2500 [32,33,34]. A systematic review of hospitalisations due to drug-related problems indicates that this percentage ranges between 1.3% and 41.3% (a mean of 15.4%). Medication reviews are of particular importance among elderly people, who, due to their multiple morbidities, are most vulnerable to polypharmacy [35]. For this reason, interviews with patients should include their preferences and possibilities, so that they could adhere to their therapies to the largest extent possible [36].
The lack of an unequivocal definition of a medication review, various models of this service, and different understandings of this concept by pharmacists, make it difficult to determine how many countries provide medication reviews [11,24,37].
An analysis of medication reviews in 34 countries in Europe indicates that they are conducted in more than half of them. Medication reviews vary between countries, to include services from retrospective evaluations of applied treatments (France, Norway, Holland), through the retrospective evaluation of treatments along with interviews with patients (Croatia, Great Britain, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland), to comprehensive reviews consisting of information about medications, clinical data, and interviews with patients (Austria, Finland, Holland, Great Britain—services conducted outside pharmacies, mainly in medical centres). In some countries, medication reviews, as pharmaceutical service, have been conducted for about 20 years (Finland, Switzerland, Holland, Great Britain, Portugal, Sweden), while in other countries, this service was implemented relatively recently, e.g., Northern Ireland and Spain (2016). In many countries, there are pilot medication review projects (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Slovakia, Ukraine; the German pilot programmes are most advanced) [11]. Previous studies showed a similar percentage of countries where pharmacists conducted medication reviews [38].
Remuneration for these services in these countries are diversified. In our study, the pharmacists propose that medication reviews be funded by the Ministry of Health or a third-party payer, and the average remuneration for a comprehensive medication review should be PLN 169.04 (EUR 35–40). In the case of a simple medication review in Switzerland, including an analysis of administered medications, the remuneration is funded by state institutions, while in Germany the project is financed by a private insurer. In all of the countries the amount of the remuneration for interviews with patients along with an evaluation of treatment is fixed (EUR 30–80) [11]. Considering the above, the expected remuneration for the medication review services in our study seems justified.
Studies on pharmacists’ readiness to conduct medication therapy management (MTM) show that pharmacists who received remuneration for this service reported significantly smaller barriers, compared to pharmacists who worked without additional remuneration [39].
A study in Belgium on the opinions of family doctors and pharmacists on the barriers and incentives for medication reviews suggests that the pharmacists described this service as time-consuming and reported problems with accessing patient data (mainly laboratory data), and with selecting appropriate medical information. The pharmacists indicated the need for relevant reimbursement for the service along with additional training. Family doctors positively rated the activities of pharmacists and emphasised the great value of this service for patients [38]. In this context, while implementing medication reviews in Poland, it is important that pharmacists have access to the medical records of patients, namely to their medications. In order to provide comprehensive pharmaceutical care, cooperation between the various groups of medical professions is necessary, particularly doctors and pharmacists [34,40,41].

5. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First of all, due to the lack of a standardised questionnaire, we created our own survey that was distributed online, which is why we do not know how many pharmacists received information about this study. The estimated number of pharmacists who received information about the study is 2310 (ZZPF observers).
We realise that pharmacists’ readiness to conduct medication reviews can be influenced by factors that were not included in our study, e.g., job satisfaction, workload, personal features, willingness of additional remuneration, etc. Additionally, other factors, such as the location of the pharmacy (big city, village, etc.), may have influenced the results.

6. Conclusions

Pharmacists in Poland have expressed their readiness to conduct medication reviews in community pharmacies and a number of them have experience in providing this service, which is why the implementation of medication reviews could be successful and result in detecting drug-related problems, optimising patient treatment, educating patients on treatment, and improving adherence. Nevertheless, further studies are required in order to determine possible barriers in the implementation of this service, and in the willingness of patients to use it.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: P.M.; methodology: P.M.; formal analysis: U.R.; investigation: P.M., A.N.-P. and M.W.-N.; writing—original draft preparation: U.R.; writing—review and editing: P.M., J.K., A.K., A.N.-P., M.W.-N., A.B. and E.B.; visualization: U.R., supervision: P.M. and M.W.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń at the Ludwik Rydygier Medical College in Bydgoszcz (KB 467/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Cosmedica, Gemini, Max, Ziko, and the Zdrowit pharmacies for their support in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. The Role of the Pharmacist in the Health Care System. 1994. Available online: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jh2995e/ (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  2. Foulon, V.; Wuyts, J.; Liekens, S.; Tsakitzidis, G. The role of interprofessional communication in pharmaceutical care. In The Pharmacist Guide to Implementing Pharmaceutical Care; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  3. Costa, F.A.; Scullin, C.; Al-Taani, G.; Hawwa, A.F.; Anderson, C.; Bezverhni, Z.; Binakaj, Z.; Cordina, M.; Foulon, V.; Garcia de Bikuña, B.; et al. Provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe: Is it developing and spreading? J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2017, 23, 1336–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Al-Hashar, A.; Al-Zakwani, I.; Eriksson, T.; Sarakbi, A.; Al-Zadjali, B.; Al Mubaihsi, S.; Al Za’abi, M. Impact of medication reconciliation and review and counselling, on adverse drug events and healthcare resource use. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 1154–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ruiz-Ramos, J.; Hernández, M.H.; Juanes-Borrego, A.M.; Milà, R.; Mangues-Bafalluy, M.A.; Mestres, C. The Impact of Pharmaceutical Care in Multidisciplinary Teams on Health Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2021, 22, 2518–2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Merks, P.; Religioni, U.; Bilmin, K.; Lewicki, J.; Jakubowska, M.; Waksmundzka-Walczuk, A.; Vaillancourt, R. Readiness and Willingness to Provide Immunization Services after Pilot Vaccination Training: A Survey among Community Pharmacists Trained and Not Trained in Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wiśniewski, M.; Religioni, U.; Merks, P. Community Pharmacies in Poland—The Journey from a Deregulated to a Strictly Regulated Market. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. OECD. Health at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance_19991312 (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  9. Ministry of Health. Pharmaceutical Care Report. Comprehensive Analysis of the Implementation Process. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/zdrowie/opieka-farmaceutyczna---raport (accessed on 23 June 2021).
  10. Pharmacy Services in Europe: Evaluating Trends and Value. Available online: https://www.pgeu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ISBE-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY_Pharmacy-Services-in-Europe_Evaluating-Trends-and-Value_-20210205.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  11. Imfeld-Isenegger, T.L.; Soares, I.B.; Makovec, U.N.; Horvat, N.; Kos, M.; van Mil, F.; Hersberger, K.E. Community pharmacist-led medication review procedures across Europe: Characterization, implementation and remuneration. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2020, 16, 1057–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Griese-Mammen, N.; Hersberger, K.E.; Messerli, M.; Leikola, S.; Horvat, N.; van Mil, J.F.; Kos, M. PCNE definition of medication review: Reaching agreement. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 1199–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Latif, A. Community pharmacy medicines use review: Current challenges. Integr. Pharm. Res. Pract. 2017, 7, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Tuula, A.; Volmer, D.; Johvik, L.; Rutkovska, I.; Poplavska, E.; Treciokiene, I.; Merks, P.; Tatarevic, A.; Radovanlija, M.; Pacadi, C.; et al. Exploring the possibilities of implementing the Medication Use Review service in Eastern Europe and Iran. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 43, 792. [Google Scholar]
  15. Oleszkiewicz, P.; Krysinski, J.; Religioni, U.; Merks, P. Access to Medicines via Non-Pharmacy Outlets in European Countries-A Review of Regulations and the Influence on the Self-Medication Phenomenon. Healthcare 2021, 9, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khezrian, M.; McNeil, C.J.; Murray, A.D.; Myint, P.K. An overview of prevalence, determinants and health outcomes of polypharmacy. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 2020, 11, 2042098620933741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Dulęba, J.; Religioni, U.; Słodka, E.; Fal, A.; Krysiński, J.; Merks, P. The Awareness of Risks Associated with OTC Drugs Available in Non-Pharmacy Outlets among Polish Patients—A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 2021, 9, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wastesson, J.W.; Morin, L.; Tan, E.C.; Johnell, K. An update on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy in older adults: A narrative review. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2018, 17, 1185–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Midão, L.; Giardini, A.; Menditto, E.; Kardas, P.; Costa, E. Polypharmacy prevalence among older adults based on the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2018, 78, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Messerli, M.; Blozik, E.; Vriends, N.; Hersberger, K.E. 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, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Seidling, H.M.; Send, A.F.J.; Bittmann, J.; Renner, K.; Dewald, B.; Lange, D.; Haefeli, W.E. Medication review in German community pharmacies–Post-hoc analysis of documented drug-related problems and subsequent interventions in the ATHINA-project. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2017, 13, 1127–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nivya, K.; Sri Sai Kiran, V.; Ragoo, N.; Jayaprakash, B.; Sonal Sekhar, M. Systemic review on drug related hospital admissions—A pubmed based search. Saudi Pharm. J. 2015, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ayalew, M.B.; Tegegn, H.G.; Abdela, O.A. Drug related hospital admissions; a systematic review of the recent literatures. Bull. Emerg. Trauma 2019, 7, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rose, O.; Cheong, V.L.; Dhaliwall, S.; Eislage, K.; Erzkamp, S.; Jorgenson, D.; Luetsch, K. Standards in medication review: An international perspective. Can. Pharm. J. Rev. Pharm. Can. 2020, 153, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dalton, K.; Byrne, S. Role of the pharmacist in reducing healthcare costs: Current insights. Integr. Pharm. Res. Pract. 2017, 6, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Bratkowska, K.; Religioni, U.; Krysiński, J.; Merks, P. Quality of Pharmaceutical Services in Independent Pharmacies and Pharmacy Chains in Poland from the Patient Perspective. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2020, 14, 2459–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Neumann-Podczaska, A. Optymalizacja Leczenia Farmakologicznego Osób Starszych. Wyniki Pierwszego w Polsce Programu Opieki Farmaceutycznej w Geriatrii (OF-Senior). Ph.D. Thesis, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Medycznego im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu, Poznan, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jokanovic, N.; Tan, E.C.; Sudhakaran, S.; Kirkpatrick, C.M.; Dooley, M.J.; Ryan-Atwood, T.E.; Bell, J.S. Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: An overview of systematic reviews. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2017, 13, 661–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Nabergoj Makovec, U.; Locatelli, I.; Kos, M. Improved adherence with Medicines Use Review service in Slovenia: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021, 21, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lewicki, J.; Religioni, U.; Merks, P. Evaluation of the Community Pharmacy Comorbidities Screening Service on Patients with Chronic Diseases. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2021, 15, 1611–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Drankowska, J.; Krysiński, J.; Płaczek, J.; Czerw, A.; Religioni, U.; Merks, P. Evaluation of the prescribing patterns of paediatric medications in polish community pharmacies. Acta Pol. Pharm. Drug Res. 2021, 78, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miguel, A.; Azevedo, L.F.; Araujo, M.; Pereira, A.C. Frequency of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21, 1139–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hughes, R.G.; Ortiz, E. Medication errors: Why they happen, and how they can be prevented. J. Infus. Nurs. 2005, 28 (Suppl. 2), 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goble, J.A.; Rocafort, P.T. Point-of-care testing: Future of chronic disease state management? J. Pharm. Pract. 2015, 19, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Motter, F.R.; Fritzen, J.S.; Hilmer, S.N.; Paniz, É.V.; Paniz, V.M.V. Potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly: A systematic review of validated explicit criteria. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 74, 679–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Beuscart, J.B.; Pelayo, S.; Robert, L.; Thevelin, S.; Marien, S.; Dalleur, O. Medication review and reconciliation in older adults. Eur. Geriatr. Med. 2021, 12, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hatah, E.; Braund, R.; Tordoff, J.; Duffull, S.B. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacist-led fee-for-services medication review. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2014, 77, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Bulajeva, A.; Labberton, L.; Leikola, S.; Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä, M.; Geurts, M.M.; de Gier, J.J.; Airaksinen, M. Medication review practices in European countries. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2014, 10, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lounsbery, J.L.; Green, C.G.; Bennett, M.S.; Pedersen, C.A. Evaluation of pharmacists’ barriers to the implementation of medication therapy management services. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2009, 49, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Robberechts, A.; De Petter, C.; Van Loon, L.; Rydant, S.; Steurbaut, S.; De Meyer, G.; De Loof, H. Qualitative study of medication review in Flanders, Belgium among community pharmacists and general practitioners. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 43, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Szilvay, A.; Somogyi, O.; Meskó, A.; Zelkó, R.; Hankó, B. Qualitative and quantitative research of medication review and drug-related problems in Hungarian community pharmacies: A pilot study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 493).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 493).
VariableN, %
Sex
Woman388, 78.7
Man105, 21.3
Specialisation
Yes123, 24.9
No370, 75.1
Academic title
MPharm481, 97.6
PhD Pharm10, 2.0
PharmD2, 0.4
Place of work
Village24, 4.9
City <50,000 inhabitants118, 23.9
City 50,000–100,000 inhabitants69, 14.0
City 100,000–500,000 inhabitants131, 26.6
City >500,000 inhabitants151, 30.6
Table
Table 2. Readiness to conduct medication reviews (N = 493).
Table 2. Readiness to conduct medication reviews (N = 493).
QuestionN, %
Do you have any experience in conducting medication reviews?
Yes114, 23.1
No379, 76.9
Are you going to conduct medication reviews?
Yes315, 63.9
No14, 2.8
I don’t know164, 33.3
Who should pay for medication reviews (you can select more than one answer)
The National Health Institution (third-party payer)401, 81.3
The Ministry of Health303, 61.5
The social insurance institution104, 21.1
Additional insurance103, 20.9
Employer69, 14.0
Patient15, 3.0
Do you think that patients should share payment for medication reviews?
Yes166, 33.7
No372, 66.3
Table
Table 3. Estimated time spent on a medication review in minutes (in your opinion, how long should a medication review in a direct contact with a patient last?) (N = 493).
Table 3. Estimated time spent on a medication review in minutes (in your opinion, how long should a medication review in a direct contact with a patient last?) (N = 493).
MSDMinimumMaximumMedianMode
Visit 1 for a simple review21.512.22602020
Visit 1 for a complex review40.822.921803030
Visit 2 for a simple review16.410.32901515
Visit 2 for a complex review30.519.321803030
Table
Table 4. Estimated time spent on preparation for a medication review in minutes (please indicate the approximate time you can devote to prepare for a medication review) (N = 493).
Table 4. Estimated time spent on preparation for a medication review in minutes (please indicate the approximate time you can devote to prepare for a medication review) (N = 493).
MSDMinimumMaximumMedianMode
Visit 1 for a simple review29.724.301802020
Visit 1 for a complex review53.344.403604040
Visit 2 for a simple review23.021.401801515
Visit 2 for a complex review41.960.201803030
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Merks, P.; Religioni, U.; Waszyk-Nowaczyk, M.; Kaźmierczak, J.; Białoszewski, A.; Blicharska, E.; Kowalczuk, A.; Neumann-Podczaska, A. Assessment of Pharmacists’ Willingness to Conduct Medication Use Reviews in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031867

AMA Style

Merks P, Religioni U, Waszyk-Nowaczyk M, Kaźmierczak J, Białoszewski A, Blicharska E, Kowalczuk A, Neumann-Podczaska A. Assessment of Pharmacists’ Willingness to Conduct Medication Use Reviews in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(3):1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031867

Chicago/Turabian Style

Merks, Piotr, Urszula Religioni, Magdalena Waszyk-Nowaczyk, Justyna Kaźmierczak, Artur Białoszewski, Eliza Blicharska, Anna Kowalczuk, and Agnieszka Neumann-Podczaska. 2022. "Assessment of Pharmacists’ Willingness to Conduct Medication Use Reviews in Poland" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 3: 1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031867

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop