Display options
Share it on

Pharmacy (Basel). 2020 Jun 30;8(3). doi: 10.3390/pharmacy8030110.

A Descriptive Quantitative Analysis on the Extent of Polypharmacy in Recipients of Ontario Primary Care Team Pharmacist-Led Medication Reviews.

Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)

Nichelle Benny Gerard, Annalise Mathers, Christoph Laeer, Eric Lui, Tom Kontio, Payal Patel, Lisa Dolovich

Affiliations

  1. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College St, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2, Canada.
  2. Family First Health Centre, 4270 Innes Rd, Orléans, ON K4A 5E6, Canada.
  3. North York Family Health Team, 707-240 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto, ON M3B 3S6, Canada.
  4. Thames Valley Family Health Team, 6-1385 N Routledge Park, London, ON N6H 5N5, Canada.
  5. Department of Family Medicine and Health Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 100 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H6, Canada.

PMID: 32630000 PMCID: PMC7558087 DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy8030110

Abstract

Pharmacist-led medication reviews have been shown to improve medication management, reducing the adverse effects of polypharmacy among older adults. This paper quantitatively examines the medications, medication discrepancies and drug therapy problems of recipients in primary care. A convenience sample of 16 primary care team pharmacists in Ontario, Canada contributed data for patients with whom they conducted a medication review over a prior four-week period. Data were uploaded using electronic data capture forms and descriptive analyses were completed. Two hundred and thirty-seven patients (on average, 67.9 years old) were included in the study, taking an average of 9.2 prescription medications ( ± 4.7). Majority of these patients (83.5%) were categorized as polypharmacy patients taking at least five or more prescribed drugs per day. Just over half of the patients were classified as having a low level of medication complexity (52.3%). Pharmacists identified 2.1 medication discrepancies ( ± 3.9) and 3.6 drug therapy problems per patient ( ± 2.8). Half these patients had more than one medication discrepancy and almost every patient had a drug therapy problem identified. Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists in primary care teams minimized medication discrepancies and addressed drug therapy problems to improve medication management and reduce adverse events that may result from polypharmacy.

Keywords: drug therapy management; medication reviews; morbidity; pharmacists; polypharmacy; potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); primary care

References

  1. Eur J Public Health. 2019 Feb 1;29(1):182-189 - PubMed
  2. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2015 Aug;35(6):87-94 - PubMed
  3. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Feb;38(1):46-53 - PubMed
  4. Mater Sociomed. 2012;24(2):68-72 - PubMed
  5. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2017 Oct 05;150(6):407-416 - PubMed
  6. Drugs Aging. 2018 Jul;35(7):575-587 - PubMed
  7. Consult Pharm. 2016;31(10):598-605 - PubMed
  8. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Dec;58(6):648-64 - PubMed
  9. J Fam Pract. 1995 Nov;41(5):469-72 - PubMed
  10. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Mar;57(3):560-1 - PubMed
  11. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2006 Jul;4(3):103-9 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 1994 Jul 27;272(4):292-6 - PubMed
  13. J Comorb. 2016 Feb 17;6(1):4-11 - PubMed
  14. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2014 Oct;62(5):305-14 - PubMed
  15. N Z Med J. 1973 Dec 26;78(505):525-8 - PubMed
  16. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2007 Dec;5(4):345-51 - PubMed
  17. Health Rep. 2014 Apr;25(4):3-10 - PubMed
  18. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2003 Jul-Aug;43(4):511-8 - PubMed
  19. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(2):383-9 - PubMed
  20. Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Sep;67(662):e650-e658 - PubMed
  21. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014 Jan;13(1):57-65 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 May;51(5):367-75 - PubMed
  23. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1998 Jan 15;55(2):165-6 - PubMed
  24. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Feb;63(2):187-95 - PubMed
  25. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013 Oct;4(4):286-93 - PubMed
  26. Toxicol Int. 2012 Jan;19(1):68-73 - PubMed
  27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;54(7):675-9 - PubMed
  28. BMC Geriatr. 2019 Oct 21;19(1):277 - PubMed
  29. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Nov-Dec;6(6):i-ii - PubMed
  30. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2004 Mar;33(2):220-7 - PubMed
  31. J Prim Health Care. 2013 Sep 01;5(3):223-33 - PubMed
  32. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018 Mar;14(3):228-240 - PubMed
  33. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 May 16;19(1):313 - PubMed
  34. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Apr;67(4):644-646 - PubMed
  35. Fam Pract. 2020 Mar 25;37(2):173-179 - PubMed
  36. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Apr;67(4):674-694 - PubMed
  37. Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):165-71 - PubMed
  38. SAGE Open Med. 2016 Jun 14;4:2050312116652568 - PubMed
  39. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008 Sep-Oct;48(5):640-7 - PubMed
  40. BMC Geriatr. 2017 Oct 10;17(1):230 - PubMed
  41. JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1936-43 - PubMed
  42. BMJ. 2012 Sep 03;345:e5205 - PubMed
  43. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988 Feb;36(2):142-9 - PubMed
  44. Ger Med Sci. 2016 Mar 03;14:Doc03 - PubMed
  45. Int J Pharm Pract. 2020 Feb;28(1):75-83 - PubMed
  46. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208 - PubMed
  47. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013 Feb;35(1):5-13 - PubMed
  48. DICP. 1990 Nov;24(11):1093-7 - PubMed
  49. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1984 Feb;32(2):154-9 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support