Cargando…
Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice
BACKGROUND: Clinical medication reviews are a recognised strategy to address polypharmacy, a key part of general practice and positively associated with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. To date there has been little investigation of the patient perspective of medication reviews. OBJECTIVE:...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36418986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01903-8 |
_version_ | 1784834906969341952 |
---|---|
author | McCahon, Deborah Duncan, Polly Payne, Rupert Horwood, Jeremy |
author_facet | McCahon, Deborah Duncan, Polly Payne, Rupert Horwood, Jeremy |
author_sort | McCahon, Deborah |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical medication reviews are a recognised strategy to address polypharmacy, a key part of general practice and positively associated with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. To date there has been little investigation of the patient perspective of medication reviews. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experiences of medication review including the processes and activities that led up to and shaped the review. METHODS: Qualitative interview study within 10 general practices in Bristol. Participants were adults with polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) and ≥ 2 long-term conditions who had a record of medication review with either a GP or pharmacist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a data driven approach. Co-design work was undertaken with four patient and public involvement advisers to design and develop resources to support patient preparation for medication review. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were interviewed (10 female, mean age 73 years, range 59–88 years). Medication review was viewed as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness and need for medications. Participants expected the review to focus upon medication related concerns, side-effects and symptoms. Those who were newer to review, were uncertain of the intended purpose, and described their review as a box-ticking exercise. Some participants were unfamiliar with the role of the pharmacist and expressed a lack of confidence in their clinical skills and knowledge. Face-to-face consultation and relationship continuity were considered important for efficient and effective medication review. Results informed co-production of a patient information leaflet to facilitate greater patient engagement and involvement in medication review. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of understanding of the rationale for medication review can limit the value patients attach to these healthcare encounters. Improved prior communication and information around the intended purpose and potential benefits of medication review may enhance patient engagement and improve patient experience and outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01903-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9682692 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96826922022-11-24 Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice McCahon, Deborah Duncan, Polly Payne, Rupert Horwood, Jeremy BMC Prim Care Research BACKGROUND: Clinical medication reviews are a recognised strategy to address polypharmacy, a key part of general practice and positively associated with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. To date there has been little investigation of the patient perspective of medication reviews. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experiences of medication review including the processes and activities that led up to and shaped the review. METHODS: Qualitative interview study within 10 general practices in Bristol. Participants were adults with polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) and ≥ 2 long-term conditions who had a record of medication review with either a GP or pharmacist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a data driven approach. Co-design work was undertaken with four patient and public involvement advisers to design and develop resources to support patient preparation for medication review. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were interviewed (10 female, mean age 73 years, range 59–88 years). Medication review was viewed as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness and need for medications. Participants expected the review to focus upon medication related concerns, side-effects and symptoms. Those who were newer to review, were uncertain of the intended purpose, and described their review as a box-ticking exercise. Some participants were unfamiliar with the role of the pharmacist and expressed a lack of confidence in their clinical skills and knowledge. Face-to-face consultation and relationship continuity were considered important for efficient and effective medication review. Results informed co-production of a patient information leaflet to facilitate greater patient engagement and involvement in medication review. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of understanding of the rationale for medication review can limit the value patients attach to these healthcare encounters. Improved prior communication and information around the intended purpose and potential benefits of medication review may enhance patient engagement and improve patient experience and outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01903-8. BioMed Central 2022-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9682692/ /pubmed/36418986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01903-8 Text en © The Author(s) 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/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research McCahon, Deborah Duncan, Polly Payne, Rupert Horwood, Jeremy Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title | Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title_full | Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title_fullStr | Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title_short | Patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
title_sort | patient perceptions and experiences of medication review: qualitative study in general practice |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682692/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36418986 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01903-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mccahondeborah patientperceptionsandexperiencesofmedicationreviewqualitativestudyingeneralpractice AT duncanpolly patientperceptionsandexperiencesofmedicationreviewqualitativestudyingeneralpractice AT paynerupert patientperceptionsandexperiencesofmedicationreviewqualitativestudyingeneralpractice AT horwoodjeremy patientperceptionsandexperiencesofmedicationreviewqualitativestudyingeneralpractice |