Communication presented at the 2nd International Congress of CiiEM: Translational Research and Innovation in Human and Health Sciences. 11-13 June 2017, Campus Egas Moniz, Caparica, PortugalN/

Costa, Filipa A. Costa

Hersberger, Kurt. E.

Horvat, Nejc

Imfeld-Isenegger, Tamara

Kos, Mitja

Makovec, Urska Nabergoj

PCNE, PRACTISE team

Soares, Inês Branco

English

Repositório Comum

PRACTISE - PhaRmAcist-led CogniTIve Services in Europe: Preliminary Results Inês Branco Soares1, Tamara Imfeld-Isenegger2, Urska Nabergoj Makovec3, Nejc Horvat3, Mitja Kos3, Kurt. E. Hersberger 2, Filipa A. Costa 1  on behalf of PCNE PRACTISE team          1. Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Caparica, Portugal 2. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Switzerland 3. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, Slovenia  12/06/2017 Background (1) S. F. Martins, J. W. F. van Mil, and F. A. da Costa, “The organizational framework of community pharmacies in Europe,” Int. J. Clin. Pharm., vol. 37, no.5, pp. 896–905, 2015.  (2) S. K. Houle, K. A. Grindrod, T. Chatterley, and R. T. Tsuyuki, “Paying pharmacists for patient care: A systematic review of remunerated pharmacy clinical care services,” Can Pharm J, vol. 147, no. 4, pp. 209–232, 2014. 2 Service provision Source: PGEU Annual Report 2015; PGEU Annual Report, 2016 However, the extent of implementation of these services is unknown.  3 Service provision (1) S. F. Martins, J. W. F. van Mil, and F. A. da Costa, “The organizational framework of community pharmacies in Europe,” Int. J. Clin. Pharm., vol. 37, no.5, pp. 896–905, 2015.  4 Paying for services Some of these services may be provided for free, others paid out-of pocket (OOP), or by a third-party. The existing remuneration models seem unclear and not public. (1,2) (1) S. K. Houle, K. A. Grindrod, T. Chatterley, and R. T. Tsuyuki, “Paying pharmacists for patient care: A systematic review of remunerated pharmacy clinical care services,” Can Pharm J, vol. 147, no. 4, pp. 209–232, 2014. (2) FIP, 2015 0 5 10 15 20 25Administrative review of RxCompoundingClinical review of RxNight and emergency hoursGeneric susbtitutionMedication reconcilliationServices to hospitalsAssessment og health…VaccinationPoint of care testingInterchange of…Monitoring pts progressSampling biological…Needle exchangeDisposal of medicinesPublic health servicesTraining medication usageFirst aidMedication administrationPrescribingThird-party paymentMandatory5 The importance of the methodology Bulajeva. Medication review practices in European countries. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 10 (2014) 731–740 6 Objectives • To develop a roadmap of existing pharmacist-led cognitive services in Europe • To describe the associated remuneration model • To detail to a greater extent the Medication Review (MR) service   7 Methods What are the services provided? The degree of implementation? Existing remuneration? Policy maker Practitioner Reseacher • Purposive sample • Consensus methods Ethics approval was obtained from “Comissão de Ética Egas Moniz” on the 26/10/2016. Process Number 515 • Cross-sectional study  • Data collected via online survey: A: 21 existing pharmacist-led cognitive services (each defined using MeSh); B: existing types of MR (63 items).  8 Bulajeva. Medication review practices in European countries. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 10 (2014) 731–740 Results: sample reached Response rate=72.9% (35/48) Respondents/country=2.5 9 Results: Availability Core Services Basic Services 97,1%; n=34 88,6%; n=31 54,3%; n=19 45,7%; n=16 11,4%; n=4 0,0%20,0%40,0%60,0%80,0%100,0%120,0%Generic substitutionProvision ofinformationEOCHome deliveryNeedle exchange62,9%; n=22 45,7%; n=16 45,7%; n=16 40,0%; n=14 31,4%; n=11 25,7%; n=9 17,1%;  n=6 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0%ITASAdherenceSmoking cessationScreeningTravel MedicineRx renewalPoint of care testing10 Results: Advanced services 51,4%; n=18 37,1%; n=13 34,3%; n=12 31,4%; n=11 17,1%; n=6 8,6%; n=3 5,7%; n=2 2,9%; n=1 0,0%; n=0 0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0%Pharmaceutical careOpioid SubstitutionNMSMedication review T1ImmunisationPrescribingAdministration injectaINR managementPersonalised Medicine11 Bulajeva. Medication review practices in European countries. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 10 (2014) 731–740 Implementation of services:  consensus finding using Portugal as an example 21 services 17 services 3 without consensus:  INR, NMS, Adherence 12 Results implementation 90% 78% 50% 47,35% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 7,50% 5% 5% 5% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Point of care testingImmunisationScreeningGeneric substitutionAdministration injectaNeedle exchangeITASAdherenceMedication review T2aHome deliverySmoking cessationPharmaceutical careINR managementTravel MedicineNMSRx renewalOpioid SubstitutionPrescribingPersonalised MedicineProvision of informationEOC13 Discussion & Conclusion • Gathered data needs comparison with official data to eliminate inconsistencies • Implementation seems to vary widely. • Definition of “implementation” is needed • Future work will focus on seeking consensus in all countries included  • Description of the different remuneration models and exploring which are the services more frequently being paid Thank you for your attention! 

PRACTISE - PhaRmAcist-led CogniTIve Services in Europe: preliminary results

https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/19362/1/Comunicacao03_CiiEM%202017.pdf

PRACTISE - PhaRmAcist-led CogniTIve Services in Europe: preliminary results

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Comum