PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication management reviews are an established intervention to identify medication-related problems, such as the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications, and under- and over-prescribing. However, the types of information included in written reports of comprehensive medication management reviews, beyond types of medication-related problems, are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the types of information Australian pharmacists include in their written reports following comprehensive medication management reviews.
METHODS: Australian consultant pharmacists were invited to upload their 10 most recent written reports of their domiciliary-based comprehensive medication management reviews. A random selection of the reports, stratified by each pharmacist, were included for qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Seventy-two de-identified reports from eight consultant pharmacists located in five of the eight Australian States and Territories were included for analysis. From the evaluated reports, four major categories of information were identified: (1) patient details such as date of interview (n = 72, 100%) and medicine history (n = 70, 97%); (2) pharmacist assessment including assessment of the patient (n = 70, 97%), medicines management (n = 68, 94%) and medicine-related issues (n = 60, 83%); (3) pharmacist recommendations, specifically pharmacological recommendations (n = 67, 93%); and (4) patient-centred experiences such as perspectives on medicines (n = 56, 78%). Reporting of patient-centred experiences appeared most variably in the included reports, including patient concerns (n = 38, 53%), willingness for change (n = 27, 38%), patient preferences (n = 13, 18%), and patient goals (n = 7, 10%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists within our study included a wide variety of information in their comprehensive medication management review reports. Aside from medication-related problems, pharmacists commonly provided a holistic assessment of the patients they care for. However, variability across reports has the potential to impact consistent service delivery.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the types of information Australian pharmacists include in their written reports following comprehensive medication management reviews.
METHODS: Australian consultant pharmacists were invited to upload their 10 most recent written reports of their domiciliary-based comprehensive medication management reviews. A random selection of the reports, stratified by each pharmacist, were included for qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: Seventy-two de-identified reports from eight consultant pharmacists located in five of the eight Australian States and Territories were included for analysis. From the evaluated reports, four major categories of information were identified: (1) patient details such as date of interview (n = 72, 100%) and medicine history (n = 70, 97%); (2) pharmacist assessment including assessment of the patient (n = 70, 97%), medicines management (n = 68, 94%) and medicine-related issues (n = 60, 83%); (3) pharmacist recommendations, specifically pharmacological recommendations (n = 67, 93%); and (4) patient-centred experiences such as perspectives on medicines (n = 56, 78%). Reporting of patient-centred experiences appeared most variably in the included reports, including patient concerns (n = 38, 53%), willingness for change (n = 27, 38%), patient preferences (n = 13, 18%), and patient goals (n = 7, 10%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists within our study included a wide variety of information in their comprehensive medication management review reports. Aside from medication-related problems, pharmacists commonly provided a holistic assessment of the patients they care for. However, variability across reports has the potential to impact consistent service delivery.
摘要：
背景：全面的药物管理审查是确定药物相关问题的既定干预措施，比如开潜在不适当的药物，开处方不足和过度。然而,全面药物管理审查书面报告中包含的信息类型，除了与药物相关的问题，是未知的。
目的：本研究旨在探讨澳大利亚药剂师在综合用药管理审查后的书面报告中所包含的信息类型。
方法：澳大利亚顾问药剂师被邀请上传其10份最新书面报告，其基于家庭的综合用药管理综述。随机选择报告，由每个药剂师分层，包括在内进行定性内容分析。
结果：纳入了来自澳大利亚八个州和地区中五个州的八名顾问药剂师的72份去识别报告进行分析。从评估报告中，确定了四个主要类别的信息：（1）患者详细信息，例如访谈日期（n=72，100％）和病史（n=70，97％）;（2）药剂师评估，包括对患者的评估（n=70，97％），药物管理（n=68，94%）和药物相关问题（n=60，83%）；（3）药剂师建议，特别是药理学建议(n=67,93%);(4)以患者为中心的经验,如对药物的看法(n=56,78%).以患者为中心的经历的报告在纳入的报告中出现得最多，包括患者担忧（n=38，53%），变革意愿(n=27，38%)，患者偏好（n=13，18%），和患者目标（n=7，10%）。
结论：在我们的研究中，药剂师在其全面的药物管理审查报告中纳入了各种各样的信息。除了药物相关的问题，药剂师通常会对他们所护理的患者进行整体评估.然而,报告之间的可变性有可能影响一致的服务交付。
目的：本研究旨在探讨澳大利亚药剂师在综合用药管理审查后的书面报告中所包含的信息类型。
方法：澳大利亚顾问药剂师被邀请上传其10份最新书面报告，其基于家庭的综合用药管理综述。随机选择报告，由每个药剂师分层，包括在内进行定性内容分析。
结果：纳入了来自澳大利亚八个州和地区中五个州的八名顾问药剂师的72份去识别报告进行分析。从评估报告中，确定了四个主要类别的信息：（1）患者详细信息，例如访谈日期（n=72，100％）和病史（n=70，97％）;（2）药剂师评估，包括对患者的评估（n=70，97％），药物管理（n=68，94%）和药物相关问题（n=60，83%）；（3）药剂师建议，特别是药理学建议(n=67,93%);(4)以患者为中心的经验,如对药物的看法(n=56,78%).以患者为中心的经历的报告在纳入的报告中出现得最多，包括患者担忧（n=38，53%），变革意愿(n=27，38%)，患者偏好（n=13，18%），和患者目标（n=7，10%）。
结论：在我们的研究中，药剂师在其全面的药物管理审查报告中纳入了各种各样的信息。除了药物相关的问题，药剂师通常会对他们所护理的患者进行整体评估.然而,报告之间的可变性有可能影响一致的服务交付。
