Author
Listed:
- Aseel S Abuzour
- Samantha A Wilson
- Alan A Woodall
- Frances S Mair
- Andrew Clegg
- Eduard Shantsila
- Mark Gabbay
- Michael Abaho
- Asra Aslam
- Danushka Bollegala
- Harriet Cant
- Alan Griffiths
- Layik Hama
- Gary Leeming
- Emma Lo
- Simon Maskell
- Maurice O’Connell
- Olusegun Popoola
- Samuel Relton
- Roy A Ruddle
- Pieta Schofield
- Matthew Sperrin
- Tjeerd Van Staa
- Iain Buchan
- Lauren E Walker
Abstract
Introduction: Structured medication reviews (SMRs), introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020, aim to enhance shared decision-making in medication optimisation, particularly for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Despite its potential, there is limited empirical evidence on the implementation of SMRs, and the challenges faced in the process. This study is part of a larger DynAIRx (Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity) project which aims to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) to SMRs and develop machine learning models and visualisation tools for patients with multimorbidity. Here, we explore how SMRs are currently undertaken and what barriers are experienced by those involved in them. Methods: Qualitative focus groups and semi-structured interviews took place between 2022–2023. Six focus groups were conducted with doctors, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists (n = 21), and three patient focus groups with patients with multimorbidity (n = 13). Five semi-structured interviews were held with 2 pharmacists, 1 trainee doctor, 1 policy-maker and 1 psychiatrist. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Two key themes limiting the effectiveness of SMRs in clinical practice were identified: ‘Medication Reviews in Practice’ and ‘Medication-related Challenges’. Participants noted limitations to the efficient and effectiveness of SMRs in practice including the scarcity of digital tools for identifying and prioritising patients for SMRs; organisational and patient-related challenges in inviting patients for SMRs and ensuring they attend; the time-intensive nature of SMRs, the need for multiple appointments and shared decision-making; the impact of the healthcare context on SMR delivery; poor communication and data sharing issues between primary and secondary care; difficulties in managing mental health medications and specific challenges associated with anticholinergic medication. Conclusion: SMRs are complex, time consuming and medication optimisation may require multiple follow-up appointments to enable a comprehensive review. There is a need for a prescribing support system to identify, prioritise and reduce the time needed to understand the patient journey when dealing with large volumes of disparate clinical information in electronic health records. However, monitoring the effects of medication optimisation changes with a feedback loop can be challenging to establish and maintain using current electronic health record systems.
Suggested Citation
Aseel S Abuzour & Samantha A Wilson & Alan A Woodall & Frances S Mair & Andrew Clegg & Eduard Shantsila & Mark Gabbay & Michael Abaho & Asra Aslam & Danushka Bollegala & Harriet Cant & Alan Griffiths , 2024.
"A qualitative exploration of barriers to efficient and effective structured medication reviews in primary care: Findings from the DynAIRx study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-18, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0299770
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299770
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- repec:plo:pone00:0151066 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.