An inventory of collaborative medication reviews for older adults - evolution of practices

• Published in: BMC geriatrics 2019-11, Vol.19 (1), p.321-321, Article 321
• Main Authors: Kiiski, A, Airaksinen, M, Mäntylä, A, Desselle, S, Kumpusalo-Vauhkonen, A, Järvensivu, T, Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä, M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accreditation; Adherence review; Ambulatory care; Analysis; Collaboration; Collaborative medication review; Comprehensive medication review; Concordance and compliance review; Content analysis; Data collection; Drug stores; Drug therapy; Drugs; Elderly; Geriatrics; Health care policy; Medicines optimization; Older people; Optimization; Patients; Polypharmacy; Prescription review; Renal function; Standardization; Statistical analysis; Typology
• ISSN: 1471-2318; 1471-2318
• DOI: 10.1186/s12877-019-1317-6

Collaborative medication review (CMR) practices for older adults are evolving in many countries. Development has been under way in Finland for over a decade, but no inventory of evolved practices has been conducted. The aim of this study was to identify and describe CMR practices in Finland after 10 years of developement. An inventory of CMR practices was conducted using a snowballing approach and an open call in the Finnish Medicines Agency's website in 2015. Data were quantitatively analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitatively by inductive thematic content analysis. Clyne et al's medication review typology was applied for evaluating comprehensiveness of the practices. In total, 43 practices were identified, of which 22 (51%) were designed for older adults in primary care. The majority (n = 30, 70%) of the practices were clinical CMRs, with 18 (42%) of them being in routine use. A checklist with criteria was used in 19 (44%) of the practices to identify patients with polypharmacy (n = 6), falls (n = 5), and renal dysfunction (n = 5) as the most common criteria for CMR. Patients were involved in 32 (74%) of the practices, mostly as a source of information via interview (n = 27, 63%). A medication care plan was discussed with the patient in 17 practices (40%), and it was established systematically as usual care to all or selected patient groups in 11 (26%) of the practices. All or selected patients' medication lists were reconciled in 15 practices (35%). Nearly half of the practices (n = 19, 44%) lacked explicit methods for following up effects of medication changes. When reported, the effects were followed up as a routine control (n = 9, 21%) or in a follow-up appointment (n = 6, 14%). Different MRs in varying settings were available and in routine use, the majority being comprehensive CMRs designed for primary outpatient care and for older adults. Even though practices might benefit from national standardization, flexibility in their customization according to context, medical and patient needs, and available resources is important.