Journals / Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-led Interventions in Turkey

Türkiye’de Klinik Eczacı Tarafından Yapılan Müdahalelerin Etkisi

Pages
142–150
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Most of the studies were carried out within the scope of a postgraduate or doctorate thesis and yet various positive outcomes such as the prevention of side effects, increased quality of life, and decreased duration of hospital stay were observed with high positive rates of interventions, which indicate that other healthcare workers are ready to collaborate with the clinical pharmacists in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Detecting drug-related problems (DRPs) is important in pharmaceutical care in for better therapeutic outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This review included 15 articles evaluating clinical pharmacist interventions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Most of the studies were carried out within the scope of a postgraduate or doctorate thesis and yet various positive outcomes such as the prevention of side effects, increased quality of life, and decreased duration of hospital stay were observed with high positive rates of interventions, which indicate that other healthcare workers are ready to collaborate with the clinical pharmacists in Turkey.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Detecting drug-related problems (DRPs) is important in pharmaceutical care in for better therapeutic outcomes. Clinical pharmacists-led comprehensive medication management plays a crucial role in the rational use of drugs by preventing, identifying, and resolving DRPs. In this review, we aimed to determine the effect of interventions on patient outcomes performed by clinical pharmacists in Turkey. A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Turkish databases (ULAKBIM, Dergipark). The main categories were “clinical pharmacist”, “intervention”, and “Turkey”. Two reviewers reviewed each article independently. Two independent reviewers screened all records and extracted data; disagreements were resolved through a consensus. Randomized controlled studies, pre- to post-intervention comparison studies, and cross-sectional studies including pharmacist-led interventions were included in the review. This review included 15 articles evaluating clinical pharmacist interventions. Ten studies (66.7%) focused on DRPs and pharmacist interventions to these problems, while the remaining 5 (33.3%) studies focused on patient education and adherence issues. Studies were conducted in oncology (33.3%), geriatrics (20.0%), chest diseases (13.3%), psychiatry (6.7%), cardiology (6.7%), and infectious diseases (6.7%) clinics. When results of studies are reviewed, most of the interventions were made at the prescriber level followed by the drug level and patient level. Problems were solved in 54.2-93.2% of DRPs, and adherence, patient knowledge, or skills were improved in most of the studies. Most of the studies were carried out within the scope of a postgraduate or doctorate thesis and yet various positive outcomes such as the prevention of side effects, increased quality of life, and decreased duration of hospital stay were observed with high positive rates of interventions, which indicate that other healthcare workers are ready to collaborate with the clinical pharmacists in Turkey.

Özet

İlaçla ilgili problemlerin saptanması (İİP), farmasötik bakım kapsamında daha iyi tedavi sonuçlarının sağlanması açısından önemlidir. Klinik eczacı tarafından yapılan kapsamlı ilaç yönetimi, ilaçla ilgili problemleri önleyerek, tanımlayarak ve çözerek ilaçların rasyonel kullanımında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu derlemede, Türkiye’de klinik eczacı tarafından yapılan müdahalelerin hasta sonuçları üzerindeki etkisinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. PubMed, Google Akademik, EMBASE, Cochrane Kütüphanesi ve Türk veri tabanlarında (ULAKBIM, Dergipark) sistematik bir literatür taraması yapılmıştır. Ana kategoriler “klinik eczacı”, “müdahale” ve “Türkiye” olarak belirlenmiştir. İki araştırmacı her makaleyi bağımsız olarak gözden geçirmiştir. İki bağımsız araştırmacı ise tüm kayıtları taramış ve verileri elde etmiş; anlaşmazlıklar fikir birliği ile çözülmüştür. Eczacılar tarafından yapılan müdahaleleri içeren randomize kontrollü çalışmalar, müdahale öncesi ve sonrası karşılaştırma çalışmaları ve kesitsel çalışmalar derlemeye dahil edilmiştir. Bu derlemeye, klinik eczacı müdahalelerini değerlendiren 15 makale dahil edilmiştir. On çalışma (%66,7) ilaçla ilgili problemler ve bu problemlere eczacı müdahalelerine odaklanırken, geri kalan 5 (%33,3) çalışma hasta eğitimi ve uyunç konularına odaklanmıştır. Çalışmalar, onkoloji (%33,3), geriatri (%20,0), göğüs hastalıkları (%13,3), psikiyatri (%6,7), kardiyoloji (%6,7) ve enfeksiyon hastalıkları (%6,7) kliniklerinde yapılmıştır. Çalışmaların sonuçları incelendiğinde, müdahalelerin çoğu hekim düzeyinde, daha sonrası ise ilaç düzeyi ve hasta düzeyinde yapılmıştır. İİP’lerin %54,2-93,2’sinde problem çözülmüştür ve çalışmaların çoğunda uyunç, hasta bilgisi veya becerileri geliştirilmiştir. Çalışmaların çoğunluğu yüksek lisans veya doktora tezi kapsamında yapılmıştır. Müdahalelerin yüksek kabul oranlarının yanı sıra, yan etkilerin önlenmesi, yaşam kalitesinde artış ve hastanede kalış süresinde azalma gibi çeşitli olumlu sonuçlar gözlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar Türkiye’deki diğer sağlık çalışanlarının klinik eczacılarla iş birliği yapmaya hazır olduklarını göstermektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

KARA, E., SANCAR, M., DEMİRKAN, K., ÇAKIR, B. K. (2022). Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-led Interventions in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 142–150. https://ajindex.com/articles/654564

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. van den Bemt PM, Egberts TC, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Brouwers JR. Drug-related problems in hospitalised patients. Drug Saf. 2000;22:321-333.
  2. Schlienger RG, Fedson DS, Jick SS, Jick H, Meier CR. Statins and the risk of pneumonia: a population-based, nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27:325-332.
  3. Viktil KK, Blix HS. The impact of clinical pharmacists on drug-related problems and clinical outcomes. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;102:275-280.
  4. Ellis SL, Billups SJ, Malone DC, Carter BL, Covey D, Mason B, Jue S, Carmichael J, Guthrie K, Sintek CD, Dombrowski R, Geraets DR, Amato M. Types of interventions made by clinical pharmacists in the IMPROVE study. Impact of managed pharmaceutical care on resource utilization and outcomes in veterans affairs medical centers. Pharmacotherapy. 2000;20:429-435.
  5. Schumock GT, Michaud J, Guenette AJ. Re-engineering: an opportunity to advance clinical practice in a community hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:1945-1949.
  6. Gourley DR, Gourley GA, Solomon DK, Portner TS, Bass GE, Holt JM, Braden RL, Rawls N, Wicke WR, Ogden J, Lawrence B. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicenter pharmaceutical care outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1998;38:567-573.
  7. Garcao JA, Cabrita J. Evaluation of a pharmaceutical care program for hypertensive patients in rural Portugal. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2002;42:858-864.
  8. Gonzalez-Martin G, Joo I, Sanchez I. Evaluation of the impact of a pharmaceutical care program in children with asthma. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49:13-18.
  9. Paulos CP, Nygren CE, Celedon C, Carcamo CA. Impact of a pharmaceutical care program in a community pharmacy on patients with dyslipidemia. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39:939-943.
  10. Anaya JP, Rivera JO, Lawson K, Garcia J, Luna J, Jr., Ortiz M. Evaluation of pharmacist-managed diabetes mellitus under a collaborative drug therapy agreement. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1841-1845.
  11. Strand LM, Guerrero RM, Nickman NA, Morley PC. Integrated patientspecific model of pharmacy practice. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1990;47:550- 554. Biles JA. The doctor of pharmacy. JAMA. 1983;249:1157-1160.
  12. Schumock GT, Butler MG, Meek PD, Vermeulen LC, Arondekar BV, Bauman JL; 2002 Task Force on Economic Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services: 1996- 2000. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:113-132.
  13. Bond CA, Raehl CL, Franke T. Clinical pharmacy services, pharmacy staffing, a