Ag. Zermansky et al., Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice, BR MED J, 323(7325), 2001, pp. 1340-1343
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Objective To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat p
rescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practic
e.
Design Randomised controlled trial comparing clinical medication review by
a pharmacist against normal general practice review.
Setting Four general practices.
Participants 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one
repeat prescription and living in the community.
Intervention Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacis
t reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment.
Main outcome measures Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one ye
ar, drug costs, and use of healthcare services.
Results 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared
with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were
more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number
of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference = 0.31, 95% confidence interv
al 0.06 to 0.57; P = 0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the
year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference pou
nd4.72 per 28 days, -pound7.04 to -pound2.41); equivalent to pound 61 per p
atient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of dr
ugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference -0.2, -0.4 to -0.1). there was n
o evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice con
sultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death ra
te.
Conclusions A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with
elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review res
ults in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost
of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioner
s.