scholarly journals Development of a model of medication review for use in clinical practice: Bristol medication review model

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D. McCahon ◽  
R. E. Denholm ◽  
A. L. Huntley ◽  
S. Dawson ◽  
P. Duncan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Patient Values ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Evidence Summaries

Abstract Background Medication review is a core aspect of medicine optimisation, yet existing models of review vary substantially in structure and content and are not necessarily easy to implement in clinical practice. This study aimed to use evidence from the existing literature to identify key medication review components and use this to inform the design of an improved review model. Methods A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42018109788) to identify randomised control trials of stand-alone medication review in adults (18+ years). The review updated that by Huiskes et al. (BMC Fam Pract. 18:5, 2017), using the same search strategy implemented in MEDLINE and Embase. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Key review components were identified, alongside relevant clinical and health service outcomes. A working group (patients, doctors and pharmacists) developed the model through an iterative consensus process (appraisal of documents plus group discussions), working from the systematic review findings, brief evidence summaries for core review components and examples of previous models, to agree on the main purpose of the review model, overarching model structure, review components and supporting material. Results We identified 28 unique studies, with moderate bias overall. Consistent medication review components included reconciliation (26 studies), safety assessment (22), suboptimal treatment (19), patient knowledge/preferences (18), adherence (14), over-the-counter therapy (13) and drug monitoring (10). There was limited evidence from studies for improvement in key clinical outcomes. The review structure was underpinned by patient values and preferences, with parallel information gathering and evaluation stages, feeding into the final decision-making and implementation. Most key components identified in the literature were included. The final model was considered to benefit from a patient-centred, holistic approach, which captured both patient-orientated and medication-focused problems, and aligned with traditional consultation methods thus facilitating implementation in practice. Conclusions The Bristol Medication Review Model provides a framework for standardised delivery of structured reviews. The model has the potential for use by all healthcare professionals with relevant clinical experience and is designed to offer flexibility of implementation not limited to a particular healthcare setting.

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

Efficacy of NSAIDs versus radiotherapy for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002199111
Author(s):  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Mitchell J Yelton ◽  
Jeffery W Chen ◽  
Philip J Rosinsky ◽  
David R Maldonado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: The aims of this systematic review were: (1) to investigate the prophylactic effect of radiotherapy (RT) and NSAIDs in high-risk patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA); and (2) to compare the efficacy of non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs in preventing post-THA HO, utilising a meta-analysis of randomised control studies. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles regarding HO following THA in March 2019. Studies were included if they contained data regarding HO incidence after THA or contained data regarding HO prophylaxis comparison of NSAIDs and/or RT in terms of dosage or duration. Results: 24 studies reported on populations that were not at high-risk for HO. These studies reported between 47.3% and 90.4% of their patient populations had no HO formation; between 2.8% and 52.7% had mild formation; and between 0.0% and 10.4% had severe formation. A total of 13 studies reported on populations at high-risk for HO. Studies analysing RT in high-risk patients reported between 28.6% and 97.4% of patients developed no HO formation; between 1.9% and 66.7% developed mild HO formation; and between 0.0% and 11.9% developed severe HO formation. Studies analysing NSAID treatment among high-risk populations reported between 76.6% and 88.9% had no HO formation; between 11.1% and 23.4% had mild HO formation, and between 0.0% and 1.8% had severe HO formation. 9 studies were identified as randomised control trials and subsequently used for meta-analysis. The relative risk for COX-II in developing any HO after THA was not significantly different compared to non-selective NSAIDs (RR 1.00; CI, 0.801–1.256; p = 0.489). Conclusions: NSAIDs prophylaxis for HO may have better efficacy than RT in high-risk patients following THA. Non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs have comparable efficacy in preventing HO. Factors such as medical comorbidities and side-effect profile should dictate the prophylaxis recommendation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document