Publication
Community pharmacist-led medication review procedures across Europe: characterization, implementation and remuneration
| dc.contributor.author | LeilaImfeld-Isenegger, Tamara | |
| dc.contributor.author | Soares, Inês Branco | |
| dc.contributor.author | Makovec, Urska Nabergoj | |
| dc.contributor.author | Horvat, Nejc | |
| dc.contributor.author | Van Mil, Foppe | |
| dc.contributor.author | Costa, Filipa A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hersberger, Kurt E. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-11-20T16:43:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-12-31T01:30:21Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-11 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) proposed a definition and classification system (type 1, 2a, 2b, 3) for medication review in 2016. However, to date, a description of the implementation and remuneration of such procedures across Europe is lacking. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the medication review procedures and the level of implementation and remuneration in community pharmacies across Europe. Methods: An online survey was developed to characterize medication review procedures (PCNE classification), level of implementation (considering regional or national) and remuneration by a third party. This survey was sent to a purposive sample of three individuals per country, with a working background in community pharmacy, pharmacy practice research, or health policy to ensure reliable data. Data triangulation was used and consensus sought between the responses. Results: Data were received from 34 out of 44 targeted European countries (November 2016–October 2017) [response rate = 77%]. Overall, 55.9% of the countries provided at least one type of medication review as an implemented service or project. Type 1 medication review (based on the medication history) was provided in 13 countries, type 2a (medication history + patient interview) in 14, type 2b (medication history + clinical data) in two, and type 3 medication review (medication history + patient interview + clinical data) in four countries. Ten of the mentioned services or projects were remunerated by a third-party. Conclusion: Substantial heterogeneity was observed across Europe in various aspects, including the procedures, implementation level and remuneration obtained. Type 1 and 2a medication review services seem to be more feasible to implement in the community pharmacy than type 2b and 3. A large number of medication review projects were ongoing in community pharmacies, which suggests that new medication review services could become implemented in the coming years. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | Tamara Leila Imfeld-Isenegger, et al., Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.11.002 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.11.002 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1551-7411 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/30227 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | pt_PT |
| dc.relation.publisherversion | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.11.002 | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Medication review | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Community pharmacy services | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Primary health care | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Service implementation | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Remuneration | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Europe | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Community pharmacist-led medication review procedures across Europe: characterization, implementation and remuneration | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.title | Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy | pt_PT |
| rcaap.embargofct | Política de copyright do editor | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |