Search

Aim: Describe, and between regions, compare the services provided, and the pharmacists' perceptions of their role and its importance., Method: Online survey involving active clinical pharmacists in Sweden., Result: The survey was completed by 118 pharmacists (66%), half of whom had at least 1 year's formal training in clinical pharmacy, and work experience in excess of 5 years. Admission medication reconciliation and medication review are provided in most regions and often on a daily basis. The most important services were: making suggestions to physicians regarding drug changes, medication review, medication reconciliation, and patient communication. On a five-point Likert-scale (where 1 = negative and 5 = positive) very few respondents scored less than 4 on the role, acceptance and skills questions., Discussion: Our study confirms the strong position of clinical pharmacy and clinical pharmacists in Sweden. There were some differences regarding the services provided between regions but clinical pharmacists' patient-centred work in the clinical setting as part of the care team is well established, accepted and important. Respondents believed they could take on additional responsibilities for prescription changes without the need for further education., Conclusion: Patient-centred clinical pharmacy work in a clinical setting as part of the care team is well established, accepted and important., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Lund Integrated Medicines Management model offers a systematic approach for individualising and optimising patient drug treatment. Clinical, economical and humanistic outcomes have been shown as well as results from the medication reconciliation process. There is a need also to describe the medication review process., Objective: To describe the frequency and types of drug-related problems (DRPs) identified during medication reviews and to evaluate the actions of the pharmacists and the physicians regarding the identified DRPs., Method: Structured medication reviews were conducted by a multi-professional team on top of standard care for 719 patients in two internal medicine wards in a Swedish University Hospital. The medication reviews were studied retrospectively to classify DRPs and actions taken., Results: A total of 573 (80%) of patients had at least one actual DRP; an average of three DRPs per patient and in total 2164. Wrong drug and adverse drug reaction were the most common types of DRPs. The most frequent medication groups involved in DRPs were drugs for the cardiovascular system and the nervous system and the most frequent substances were warfarin, digoxin, furosemide and paracetamol. The 10 most common medications accounted for 27% of the actual DRPs. Of the identified DRPs, a total of 1740 (80%) were acted on. The three most common types of adjustments made were withdrawal of drug therapy, change of drug therapy and initiation of drug therapy. When the pharmacist suggested an adjustment, the physician implemented 88% (1037/1174) of the recommendations., Conclusion: DRPs are common among elderly patients who are admitted to hospital. Systematic identification of high-risk medications and common DRP types enables targeting of prioritised patients for medication reviews., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate pharmacists' involvement in medication reconciliation (MedRec) and the quality of MedRec processes throughout Europe., Methods: A survey with six questions was sent to delegates from the 30 countries participating in the EAHP Academy Seminar Camp focusing on MedRec. The questionnaire included four questions regarding the status of MedRec on a national level including the prevalence of MedRec, available educations, requirements of the pharmacists and training of new staff., Results: 52 delegates from 29 countries responded (response rate 90%). Only the participants from the UK stated that MedRec is implemented as standard practice in the country. For most countries MedRec is implemented in some hospitals for some patients (13) or as projects (12). In 11 countries a systematic approach was in place for training new staff and 13 countries have courses teaching MedRec. Only five countries had prerequisites for pharmacists performing MedRec., Conclusions: There is great heterogeneity in the implementation rate and standards of practice of MedRec processes including pharmacists in Europe., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.