• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

开展药物评估以改善阿鲁巴医疗保健系统:一项混合方法试点研究。

Developing Medication Reviews to Improve the Aruban Healthcare System: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.

作者信息

Copinga Minke L, Kok Ellen A, van Dam Anke J J, Wever Anoeska, Tromp Adrienne, Woerdenbag Herman J

机构信息

Pharmacy Master Programme, School of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.

Pharos, Expertise Center on Health Disparities, Arthur van Schendelstraat 600, 3511 MJ Utrecht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Pharmacy (Basel). 2024 Jul 12;12(4):108. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy12040108.

DOI:10.3390/pharmacy12040108
PMID:39051392
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11270182/
Abstract

This study investigated whether and how medication reviews (MRs) conducted by pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs) with patient involvement can be performed on the island of Aruba (Dutch Caribbean). In this mixed-methods pilot study (both qualitative and quantitative), constructive and observational methodologies were combined. Healthcare providers' and patients' views on MRs and aspects of Aruban healthcare and culture relevant to MRs were examined. These insights were used to develop a protocol for conducting and implementing MRs in Aruba. Surveys were distributed and semi-structured interviews were held among Aruban community pharmacists and GPs, and a pilot program was created in which MRs were carried out with four Aruban patients and their GPs. According to the included healthcare providers, the main purpose of MRs is to optimize the patient experience and achieve concordance. Even though pharmacists and GPs consider their partnership equal, they have different views as to who should bear which responsibility in the MR process in matters regarding patient selection and follow-up. Common Aruban themes that were mentioned by the healthcare providers and deemed relevant for conducting MRs included behaviour/culture, healthcare, lifestyle, and therapy compliance. Anamnesis should be concise during the MR, and questions about medication storage, concerns, beliefs, and practical problems, as well as checks for limited health literacy, were considered important. In the pilot, at least three to, maximally, eight pharmacotherapy-related problems (PRPs) were detected per MR consultation, such as an incorrect dosage of acetylsalicylic acid, an inappropriate combination tablet for blood pressure regulation, and the absence of important laboratory values. All patients considered their consultation to be positive and of added value. In addition, it was observed that an MR can potentially generate cost savings. The information obtained from the healthcare providers and patients, together with the basic principles for MRs, as applied in the Netherlands, led to a definitive and promising MR format with practical recommendations for community pharmacists in Aruba: in comparison with the Dutch MR approach, GPs and pharmacists in Aruba could collaborate more on patient selection for MRs and their follow-up, because of their specific knowledge regarding the medications patients are taking chronically (pharmacists), and possible low levels of health literacy (GPs). Taking into account the Aruban culture, pharmacists could ask extra questions during MRs, referring to lifestyle (high prevalence of obesity), readability of medication labels (limited literacy), and herbal product use (Latin American culture). GPs and medical specialists sometimes experience miscommunication regarding the prescription of medication, which means that pharmacists must carefully take into account possible duplicate medications or interactions.

摘要

本研究调查了在阿鲁巴岛(荷属加勒比地区),药剂师和全科医生(GP)在患者参与下进行的用药评估(MR)是否可行以及如何实施。在这项混合方法的试点研究(包括定性和定量研究)中,将建设性和观察性方法结合起来。研究考察了医疗保健提供者和患者对用药评估以及阿鲁巴医疗保健和文化中与用药评估相关方面的看法。这些见解被用于制定在阿鲁巴进行和实施用药评估的方案。对阿鲁巴社区药剂师和全科医生进行了问卷调查并开展了半结构化访谈,并创建了一个试点项目,对四名阿鲁巴患者及其全科医生进行用药评估。根据参与研究的医疗保健提供者的说法,用药评估的主要目的是优化患者体验并达成一致性。尽管药剂师和全科医生认为他们的合作关系是平等的,但在患者选择和后续跟进等用药评估过程中,对于谁应承担何种责任,他们有不同的看法。医疗保健提供者提到的、被认为与进行用药评估相关的阿鲁巴常见主题包括行为/文化、医疗保健、生活方式和治疗依从性。在用药评估期间,问诊应简洁明了,关于药物储存、担忧、信念和实际问题的询问,以及对健康素养有限情况的检查,都被认为很重要。在试点中,每次用药评估咨询至少检测到三至八个与药物治疗相关的问题(PRP),例如乙酰水杨酸剂量不正确、用于血压调节的复方片剂不合适以及重要实验室值缺失。所有患者都认为他们参与的咨询是积极且有价值的。此外,观察到用药评估有可能节省成本。从医疗保健提供者和患者那里获得的信息,以及在荷兰应用的用药评估基本原则,促成了一种明确且有前景的用药评估形式,并为阿鲁巴的社区药剂师提供了实用建议:与荷兰的用药评估方法相比,阿鲁巴的全科医生和药剂师在用药评估的患者选择及其后续跟进方面可以加强合作,因为药剂师对患者长期服用的药物有专业知识,而全科医生可能了解患者健康素养水平较低的情况。考虑到阿鲁巴的文化,药剂师在用药评估期间可以额外询问一些问题,涉及生活方式(肥胖患病率高)、药物标签的可读性(识字率有限)和草药产品使用情况(拉丁美洲文化)。全科医生和医学专家有时在药物处方方面存在沟通不畅的问题,这意味着药剂师必须仔细考虑可能的重复用药或相互作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/5cdd26f39429/pharmacy-12-00108-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/038a6aad28a2/pharmacy-12-00108-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7d140e5def26/pharmacy-12-00108-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7a7cbd3634b2/pharmacy-12-00108-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/4f3193569487/pharmacy-12-00108-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7bc5143552b9/pharmacy-12-00108-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/f6065c241634/pharmacy-12-00108-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/f1aeb5124c07/pharmacy-12-00108-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/5cdd26f39429/pharmacy-12-00108-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/038a6aad28a2/pharmacy-12-00108-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7d140e5def26/pharmacy-12-00108-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7a7cbd3634b2/pharmacy-12-00108-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/4f3193569487/pharmacy-12-00108-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/7bc5143552b9/pharmacy-12-00108-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/f6065c241634/pharmacy-12-00108-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/f1aeb5124c07/pharmacy-12-00108-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9ea8/11270182/5cdd26f39429/pharmacy-12-00108-g008.jpg

相似文献

1
Developing Medication Reviews to Improve the Aruban Healthcare System: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.开展药物评估以改善阿鲁巴医疗保健系统:一项混合方法试点研究。
Pharmacy (Basel). 2024 Jul 12;12(4):108. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy12040108.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a medication review in primary care: a qualitative thematic analysis.初级保健中患者对实施用药评估的认知障碍与促进因素:一项定性主题分析
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jan 5;19(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0707-0.
4
Implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies and their effect on potentially inappropriate drug use in elderly patients.社区药店中药物审查的实施及其对老年患者潜在不适当药物使用的影响。
Int J Clin Pharm. 2013 Oct;35(5):719-26. doi: 10.1007/s11096-013-9794-8. Epub 2013 May 22.
5
Pharmacist-led medication reviews in primary healthcare for adult community-dwelling patients - a descriptive study charting a new target group.药剂师主导的初级医疗中老年社区患者药物治疗管理评估:描述性研究,为新目标群体绘制图表。
BMC Prim Care. 2022 Sep 16;23(1):237. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01849-x.
6
Structured medication reviews in Parkinson's disease: pharmacists' views, experiences and needs - a qualitative study.帕金森病的结构化药物评估:药剂师的观点、经验和需求——一项定性研究
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2024 Apr 30;15:20420986241237071. doi: 10.1177/20420986241237071. eCollection 2024.
7
Patient selection and general practitioners' perception of collaboration in medication review.患者选择和全科医生对药物审查合作的看法。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 May;15(5):521-527. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.06.019. Epub 2018 Jun 30.
8
Development of a web-based pharmaceutical care plan to facilitate collaboration between healthcare providers and patients.开发基于网络的药学服务计划,以促进医疗服务提供者与患者之间的协作。
Inform Prim Care. 2013;21(1):53-9. doi: 10.14236/jhi.v21i1.40.
9
Exploring the impact of pharmacist-supported medication reviews in dementia care: experiences of general practitioners and nurses.探讨药剂师支持的药物审查在痴呆症护理中的影响:全科医生和护士的经验。
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Jun 14;24(1):520. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05124-9.
10
Patient Participation in Medication Safety for Noncommunicable Diseases: A Qualitative Study of General Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Outpatients' Perspectives in Beijing.患者参与非传染性疾病用药安全:一项关于北京全科医生、药剂师和门诊患者观点的定性研究
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024 Sep 14;18:1907-1918. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S474921. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Medication Review: What's in a Name and What Is It about?药物审查:名称里有什么以及它是关于什么的?
Pharmacy (Basel). 2024 Feb 19;12(1):39. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy12010039.
2
Financial impact of medication reviews by clinical pharmacists to reduce in-hospital adverse drug events: a return-on-investment analysis.临床药师进行药物审查以减少院内药物不良事件的财务影响:投资回报分析。
Int J Clin Pharm. 2024 Apr;46(2):496-505. doi: 10.1007/s11096-023-01683-w. Epub 2024 Feb 5.
3
Cost-effectiveness of a structured medication review approach for multimorbid older adults: Within-trial analysis of the OPERAM study.
结构化药物治疗评估方法对多病老年患者的成本效益:OPERAM 研究的试验内分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 11;17(4):e0265507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265507. eCollection 2022.
4
Understanding the Potential for Pharmacy Expertise in Palliative Care: The Value of Stakeholder Engagement in a Theoretically Driven Mapping Process for Research.了解药学专业知识在姑息治疗中的潜力:利益相关者参与理论驱动的研究映射过程的价值。
Pharmacy (Basel). 2021 Nov 26;9(4):192. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy9040192.
5
Belief in Brua among psychiatric patients from Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao: Results from an explorative study in the Netherlands.阿鲁巴岛、博奈尔岛和库拉索岛的精神科患者对布劳巫术的信仰:荷兰探索性研究的结果。
Transcult Psychiatry. 2022 Jun;59(3):249-262. doi: 10.1177/13634615211036398. Epub 2021 Sep 9.
6
A cost-benefit analysis of hospital-wide medication reviews: a period prevalence study.医院范围内药物治疗审核的成本效益分析:一项时期患病率研究。
Int J Clin Pharm. 2022 Feb;44(1):138-145. doi: 10.1007/s11096-021-01323-1. Epub 2021 Sep 8.
7
Experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies: A systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).社区药房实施用药评估中关键利益相关者的经验:使用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)的系统评价
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022 Jun;18(6):2944-2961. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.07.017. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
8
Cost-saving medication therapy management for outpatients.门诊患者的节约成本药物治疗管理
Perspect Clin Res. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):14-20. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_164_18. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
9
Standards in medication review: An international perspective.药物评估标准:国际视角
Can Pharm J (Ott). 2020 Jul 14;153(4):215-223. doi: 10.1177/1715163520929665. eCollection 2020 Jul-Aug.
10
Associations Between Health Literacy and Medication Self-Management Among Community Health Center Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension.社区卫生中心血压控制不佳的高血压患者的健康素养与药物自我管理之间的关联
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Jan 15;14:87-95. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S226619. eCollection 2020.