NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundExecuting structured medication reviews (SMRs) in primary care to optimize drug treatment is considered standard care of community pharmacists in the Netherlands. Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) often face complex drug regimens for their symptomatic treatment and might, therefore, benefit from an SMR. However, previously, no effect of an SMR on quality of life in PD was found. In trying to improve the case management of PD, it is interesting to understand if and to what extent SMRs in PD patients are of added value in the pharmacist's opinion and what are assumed facilitating and hindering factors.ObjectivesTo analyse the process of executing SMRs in PD patients from a community pharmacist's point of view.DesignA cross-sectional, qualitative study was performed, consisting of face-to-face semi-structured in-depth interviews.MethodsThe interviews were conducted with community pharmacists who executed at least one SMR in PD, till data saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically using an iterative approach.ResultsThirteen pharmacists were interviewed. SMRs in PD were considered of added value, especially regarding patient contact and bonding, individualized care and its possible effect in the future, although PD treatment is found already well monitored in secondary care. Major constraints were time, logistics and collaboration with medical specialists.ConclusionAlthough community pharmacist-led SMRs are time-consuming and sometimes logistically challenging, they are of added value in primary care in general, and also in PD, of which treatment occurs mainly in secondary care. It emphasizes the pharmacist's role in PD treatment and might tackle future drug-related issues. Improvements concern multidisciplinary collaboration for optimized SMR execution and results.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.