Cargando…
Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review
BACKGROUND: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient’s medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to de...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5 |
_version_ | 1785034870382133248 |
---|---|
author | Alharthi, Mohammed Wright, David Scott, Sion Blacklock, Jeanette |
author_facet | Alharthi, Mohammed Wright, David Scott, Sion Blacklock, Jeanette |
author_sort | Alharthi, Mohammed |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient’s medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to describe activities undertaken within the MR process would facilitate quality of reporting, and the comparison of different interventions. AIM: To identify overarching and individual MR activity terms and definitions reported within studies where MR was the main intervention. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms for ‘Intervention’ and ‘Outcome’. Papers with empirical data reporting and describing MR activities in English were included. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess research quality. Two researchers reviewed all included literature independently. Data extraction was performed using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care to report study characteristics, and terms and definitions used to describe MR activities. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials (38%), eight randomised controlled trials (38%), and five quantitative descriptive studies (24%). Overarching interventions such as ‘Clinical’, ‘Education’ and ‘Technical’ were identified with no standardised definitions. Terms used to describe the medication review activities, such as stop, start and change, varied with significant potential for ambiguity. CONCLUSION: The literature reports a variety of overlapping, ambiguous and undefined MR terms. As a result, comparing process evaluations from MR interventions may be difficult. A standardised taxonomy to describe, define and report MR activities is required. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10147810 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101478102023-04-30 Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review Alharthi, Mohammed Wright, David Scott, Sion Blacklock, Jeanette Int J Clin Pharm Review Article BACKGROUND: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient’s medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to describe activities undertaken within the MR process would facilitate quality of reporting, and the comparison of different interventions. AIM: To identify overarching and individual MR activity terms and definitions reported within studies where MR was the main intervention. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms for ‘Intervention’ and ‘Outcome’. Papers with empirical data reporting and describing MR activities in English were included. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess research quality. Two researchers reviewed all included literature independently. Data extraction was performed using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care to report study characteristics, and terms and definitions used to describe MR activities. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials (38%), eight randomised controlled trials (38%), and five quantitative descriptive studies (24%). Overarching interventions such as ‘Clinical’, ‘Education’ and ‘Technical’ were identified with no standardised definitions. Terms used to describe the medication review activities, such as stop, start and change, varied with significant potential for ambiguity. CONCLUSION: The literature reports a variety of overlapping, ambiguous and undefined MR terms. As a result, comparing process evaluations from MR interventions may be difficult. A standardised taxonomy to describe, define and report MR activities is required. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5. Springer International Publishing 2022-11-21 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10147810/ /pubmed/36414823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5 Text en © Crown 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Article Alharthi, Mohammed Wright, David Scott, Sion Blacklock, Jeanette Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title | Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title_full | Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title_short | Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review |
title_sort | terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: do they require standardisation? a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10147810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36414823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01494-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alharthimohammed termsusedtodescribeanddefineactivitiesundertakenasaresultofthemedicationreviewprocessdotheyrequirestandardisationasystematicreview AT wrightdavid termsusedtodescribeanddefineactivitiesundertakenasaresultofthemedicationreviewprocessdotheyrequirestandardisationasystematicreview AT scottsion termsusedtodescribeanddefineactivitiesundertakenasaresultofthemedicationreviewprocessdotheyrequirestandardisationasystematicreview AT blacklockjeanette termsusedtodescribeanddefineactivitiesundertakenasaresultofthemedicationreviewprocessdotheyrequirestandardisationasystematicreview |