Structured medication reviews in Parkinson’s disease: pharmacists’ views, experiences and needs – a qualitative study

TL;DR

This study explores how community pharmacists in the Netherlands view and experience conducting medication reviews for Parkinson’s disease patients, highlighting both benefits and challenges.

Contribution

The study provides new insights into pharmacists’ perspectives on structured medication reviews in Parkinson’s disease, identifying facilitators and barriers to their implementation.

Findings

Pharmacists see value in medication reviews for Parkinson’s patients, especially for patient bonding and individualized care.

Key barriers include time constraints, logistical challenges, and difficulties in collaboration with medical specialists.

Despite challenges, medication reviews are seen as beneficial for addressing future drug-related issues in Parkinson’s patients.

Abstract

Executing 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.

To analyse the process of executing SMRs in PD patients from a community pharmacist’s point of view.

A cross-sectional, qualitative study was performed, consisting of face-to-face semi-structured in-depth interviews.

The 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.

Thirteen 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.

Although 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.

Structured medication reviews in Parkinson’s disease: pharmacists’ views, experiences and needs

Why is this research done?

In Parkinson’s disease (PD), drug therapy is still the most important treatment strategy. Due to disease progression, patients often face complicated medication regimens, polypharmacy, and potential drug-related problems. The execution of structured medication reviews (SMR) in primary care is considered standard care of community pharmacists in the Netherlands, aiming to optimise drug treatment. Although it might also affect clinical outcomes, we found no effect of an SMR in PD on quality of life in our previous study. In trying to improve case management of PD, we need 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.

What did the researchers do?

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 community pharmacists who recently executed ⩾1 SMR in PD.

What did the researchers find?

We found that SMRs in PD are considered of added value with regard to patient bonding and individualised care. By being known by the pharmacist, and vice versa, by knowing the patient’s situation, future drug problems might be tackled earlier. However, executing SMRs comes with barriers, of which lack of time, logistic constraints and difficulties in cooperation with the medical specialist are the most important.

What do these findings mean?

Taking into account both the pharmacist’s effort and additional costs when performing an SMR in the current setting, the valuable time of a pharmacist could potentially better be spent on more (cost-)effective interventions, or a structural solution should be sought for the experienced hindering factors. Since we do not doubt the importance of periodic medication optimization in complex diseases or high-risk patients, we have to focus on either improving the current setting of SMRs in PD, or searching for other strategies in which this can be achieved.

Figures