Patients' and pharmacists' perceptions of a pilot Medicines Use Review service in Auckland, New Zealand

Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 35-40

  Sheridan, Janie ^a   Butler, Rachael ^b   Brandt, Theo ^a   Harrison, Jeff ^a   Jensen, Maree ^a   Shaw, John ^a  

^a THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Community pharmacy; Interviews; Medicines use review; New Zealand

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EMPOWERMENT; ETHNICITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICE; HOME CARE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICINES USE REVIEW SERVICE; NEW ZEALAND; PATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; PHARMACIST; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EID: 84857083347     PISSN: 17598885     EISSN: 17598893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-8893.2011.00075.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Urbis Keys Young. Evaluation of the Home Medicines Review Program (Pharmacy Component) - Final Report. Canberra: Pharmacy Guild of Australia, 2005.
2. Ministry of Health. Medicines New Zealand: Contributing to Good Health Outcomes for All New Zealanders. Wellington: New Zealand, 2007.
3. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines and Standards for the Collaborative and Pharmacist Residential Medication Management Review (RMMR) Program and Associated Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) Services. Canberra: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, 2006.
4. Strand L etal. Drug-related problems: their structure and function. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1990; 24: 1093-1097.
5. Vinks TH etal. Pharmacist-based medication review reduces potential drug-related problems in the elderly: the SMOG controlled trial. Drugs Aging 2009; 26: 123-133.
6. Roberts M etal. Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51: 257-265.
7. McDonald R etal. Professional status in a changing world: the case of medicines use reviews in English community pharmacy. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71: 451-458.
8. Hanlon J etal. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Am J Med 1996; 100: 428-437.
9. Portlock J etal. A community pharmacy asthma MUR project in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Pharm J 2009; 282: 109-112.
10. Renberg T etal. Exploring subjective outcomes perceived by patients receiving a pharmaceutical care service. Res Soc Admin Pharm 2006; 2: 212-231.
11. Sturgess IK etal. Community pharmacy based provision of pharmaceutical care to older patients. Pharm World Sci 2003; 25: 218-226.
12. Urban R etal. Perceptions of medicines use reviews - the views of community pharmacists within a West Yorkshire primary care trust. Pharm J 2008; 281: 303-305.
13. Blenkinsopp A etal. Medicines use reviews: the first year of a new community pharmacy service. Pharm J 2007; 278: 218-223.
14. Wilcock M, Harding G. What do pharmacists think of MURs and do they change prescribed medication? Pharm J 2008; 281: 163-167.
15. MacIntosh C etal. Attitudes toward and factors affecting implementation of medication therapy management services by community pharmacists. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2009; 49: 26-A3.
16. Foulsham R etal. Ready, steady, pause and take stock! Time to reflect on medicines use review. Pharm J 2006; 276: 414.
17. Hall J, Smith I. Barriers to medicines use reviews: comparing the views of pharmacists and PCTs. Int J Pharm Pract 2006; 14(Suppl.2): B51-B52.
18. Herborg H etal. Improving drug therapy for patients with asthma - part 1: patient outcomes. J Am Pharm Assoc 2001; 41: 539-550.
19. Harding G, Wilcock M. What do pharmacists think of peer review of medicine use reviews? Pharm J 2008; 281: 674-676.
20. Zermansky AG, Freemantle N. Is medication review by pharmacists of any use? PharmacoEconomics 2001; 25: 91-92.
21. Lee E etal. Examining the first year of Medicines Use Review services provided by pharmacists in New Zealand: 2008. N Z Med J 2009; 122: no. 1293.
22. Thomas, DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 2006; 27(2), 237-246.
23. de Oliveira D etal. Medication therapy management: 10 years of experience in a large integrated health care system. J Manag Care Pharm 2010; 16: 185-195.
24. Blenkinsopp A etal. National Evaluation of the New Community Pharmacy Contract. London: Pharmacy Practice Research Trust, 2007.
25. Scahill S etal. Health care policy and community pharmacy: implications for the New Zealand primary health care sector. N Z Med J 2010; 123: 1317.
26. Donyai P, van den Berg M. Medicines use review: would calling it a medicines check-up make more sense? Pharm J 2006; 277: 732.
27. Garcia G etal. Generating demand for pharmacist-provided medication therapy management: identifying patient-preferred marketing strategies. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2009; 49: 611-616.
28. Tolhurst H etal. After hours medican care and the personal safety needs of rural practitioners. 5th National Rural Health Conference, Adelaide, 1999.
29. Hobbs F. Violence in general practice: a survey of general practitioners' views. BMJ 1991; 302: 329-332.