Background Medication review is important in an era, in which polypharmacy is increasing. To date, no agreed international definition of medication review exists. Objective The aim was to reach agreement on an internationally applicable definition of medication review. Setting An international group of experts in medication review. Methods A working group of the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) was established to agree on a definition including a classification of medication review. First, a survey with the aim of systematically gathering viewpoints on a definition of medication review was conducted. Second, a workshop was held to achieve an agreement. Finally, during the General Assembly of PCNE, the definition was approved. To ensure a better understanding of the scope and the considerations behind the definition, a position paper was created. Main outcome measure An internationally agreed definition of medication review. Results 58 PCNE members from 20 different countries completed the online survey. Then, 22 participants from 11 different countries (not only PCNE members) elaborated the final definition during a workshop. The final PCNE version agreed was: "Medication review is a structured evaluation of a patient's medicines with the aim of optimising medicines use and improving health outcomes. This entails detecting drug-related problems and recommending interventions". Overall, the consensus process included 225 people from 35 countries and resulted also in a classification of medication review taking into account the type and source of available information. Conclusion Involvement of an international community from research and practice and the use of a systematic process led to an agreement on the term medication review and on a classification valid for all settings and professions.

BackgroundIn 2010 the ‘Polymedication Check’ (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients’ adherence in everyday life.MethodsThis randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28.Primary outcome measure was change in patients’ objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing.Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0–100 %.Results and discussionA total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4 %) and control group (N = 232, 51.6 %). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (NInt = 37 (17.0 %), NCont = 41 (17.7 %), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7 %). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8 %). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively).Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03 % in the intervention and −0.41 % in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0–100 % between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028).ConclusionThrough the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5 %, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5 % the PMC showed a positive effect.Trial registrationClinical trial registry database, NCT01739816; first entry on November 27, 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1384-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The possible impact of the measures in adherence research is discussed. By doing this, the results of future adherence research should gain in accuracy. Finally, studies will become more transparent, enabling comparison between studies.

Background Several measures for calculating adherence to one medication from dispensing data records have been proposed, but the nomenclature is inconsistent and computations vary. The same measures, like the medication possession ratio (MPR), have been used for multiple medication regimens, and have tended to over- or under-estimate adherence rates. Objective To demonstrate the impact of varying elements in MPR to a single medication regimen; to define standards for the estimation of adherence to polypharmacy; to propose a new method for calculating adherence to polypharmacy; to face validate it. Setting Face validity of the proposed method. Method Variations in the MPR formula were simulated. Standards for the estimation of adherence to polypharmacy were defined. A new method to calculate adherence to polypharmacy was established. Its face validity with three illustrative cases obtained from a pharmacy refill database was assessed. Main outcome measure Adherence rate to polypharmacy from refill data records. Results MPR to a single medication is operationalized in the numerator and denominator and is influenced by the parameters like observation period, medication gaps, overlap. For polypharmacy, an average MPR is commonly used, which is not accounting for the specificity of multiple medications, and hence overestimating adherence rate. We propose the daily polypharmacy possession ratio (DPPR) as an index of adherence to polypharmacy. It estimates the proportion of time a patient had medication available for use by considering the presence or absence of multiple medications on each day in the observation period. We calculated possession rates from refill histories over 31 months (January 1, 2011–July 31, 2013) for three illustrative patients. The average MPR estimates were 80 % for a patient with 6 medications/20 refill dates, 90 % for a patient with 4 medications/11 refill dates, and 89 % for a patient with 3 medications/17 refill dates. The corresponding DPPRs were 75, 88 and 99 %, indicating overestimations by 5 and 2 %, and underestimation by 10 %, respectively. Conclusion The DPPR accounts for the specificity of polypharmacy including number of medications, medication switching, duplication, overlapping. Research is needed to further confirm the validity of this new index.

ObjectivesTo translate the SWAMECO from German into English; to complete content and face validity with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and with patients from the target population that is, community-dwelling adult patients taking three or more medicines for three or more months.DesignThe process followed guidance from Sousa et al and included translation and cross-cultural adaptation, and cognitive testing among selected HCPs and patients. As the SWAMECO questionnaire is a screening instrument, pilot testing was performed in the target population.SettingThree community pharmacies in and around Cork (Ireland) recruited patients for interviews and pilot testing.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling patients with ≥3 oral medications for ≥3 months, aged ≥18 years.Outcome measuresAnswers to the SWAMECO questionnaire; clarity of each question, each instruction and each response format.ResultsIssues related to cultural and conceptual differences were resolved by rewording some items. Ten HCPs and 11 patients completed the questionnaire and gave their feedback and opinions on criteria according to Fitzpatrick et al. Revisions included rewording; deleting of two questions; using of colour to signpost that is, where to skip questions that were not applicable to the participants; and replacement of the A-14 medication adherence scale with three validated items. Of the 66 patients enrolled for pilot testing, eight (12.1%) indicated swallowing difficulties. Difficulties with ingesting foods or liquids correlated with swallowing difficulties (p=0.001). All patients perceived discomfort (mean 6.9 on a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 10). Patients with swallowing difficulties were significantly more likely to report modifying their medicines (p=0.004) and having poorer medication adherence (p=0.028) than those who had no swallowing difficulties.ConclusionsThe version of the SWAMECO questionnaire in English contains 28 items and is ready for use in adults with polypharmacy.