Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. / Zermansky, AG; Petty, DR; Raynor, DK; Freemantle, Nick; Vail, A; Lowe, CJ.

In: British Medical Journal (International edition), Vol. 323, No. 7325, 01.12.2001, p. 1340-1343.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{64382a06afc540a69a724b49db427e7f,
title = "Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice",
abstract = "Objective To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design Randomised controlled trial comparing clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting Four general practices. Participants 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P = 0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference pound4.72 per 28 days, -pound7.04 to -pound2.41); equivalent to pound 61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference -0.2, -0.4 to -0.1). there was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners.",
author = "AG Zermansky and DR Petty and DK Raynor and Nick Freemantle and A Vail and CJ Lowe",
year = "2001",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340",
language = "English",
volume = "323",
pages = "1340--1343",
journal = "British Medical Journal (International edition)",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7325",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice

AU - Zermansky, AG

AU - Petty, DR

AU - Raynor, DK

AU - Freemantle, Nick

AU - Vail, A

AU - Lowe, CJ

PY - 2001/12/1

Y1 - 2001/12/1

N2 - Objective To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design Randomised controlled trial comparing clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting Four general practices. Participants 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P = 0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference pound4.72 per 28 days, -pound7.04 to -pound2.41); equivalent to pound 61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference -0.2, -0.4 to -0.1). there was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners.

AB - Objective To determine whether a pharmacist can effectively review repeat prescriptions through consultations with elderly patients in general practice. Design Randomised controlled trial comparing clinical medication review by a pharmacist against normal general practice review. Setting Four general practices. Participants 1188 patients aged 65 or over who were receiving at least one repeat prescription and living in the community. Intervention Patients were invited to a consultation at which the pharmacist reviewed their medical conditions and current treatment. Main outcome measures Number of changes to repeat prescriptions over one year, drug costs, and use of healthcare services. Results 590 (97%) patients in the intervention group were reviewed compared with 233 (44%) in the control group. Patients seen by the pharmacist were more likely to have changes made to their repeat prescriptions (mean number of changes per patient 2.2 v 1.9; difference = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.57; P = 0.02). Monthly drug costs rose in both groups over the year, but the rise was less in the intervention group (mean difference pound4.72 per 28 days, -pound7.04 to -pound2.41); equivalent to pound 61 per patient a year. Intervention patients had a smaller rise in the number of drugs prescribed (0.2 v 0.4; mean difference -0.2, -0.4 to -0.1). there was no evidence that review of treatment by the pharmacist affected practice consultation rates, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, or death rate. Conclusions A clinical pharmacist can conduct effective consultations with elderly patients in general practice to review their drugs. Such review results in significant changes in patients' drugs and saves more than the cost of the intervention without affecting the workload of general practitioners.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340

DO - 10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1340

M3 - Article

C2 - 11739221

VL - 323

SP - 1340

EP - 1343

JO - British Medical Journal (International edition)

JF - British Medical Journal (International edition)

SN - 0959-8146

IS - 7325

ER -