Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews

A Retrospective Evaluation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Laboratory tests can be important tools for the assessment of pharmacotherapy. Nonetheless, there are no previous studies that have explicitly focused on the role of pathology data in Home Medicines Reviews (HMR), an Australian medication review program. Objective: Evaluate pharmacists’ recommendations regarding laboratory testing in the medication review process. Methods: This retrospective review of HMRs assessed the prevalence of the pathology data provided by general practitioners. Additionally, the pharmacists’ recommendations based on these laboratory data were compared with national and international guidelines. Results: In total, 580 reports were evaluated. Of these, 179 reports did not contain any pathology data. Pharmacists commented on provided laboratory values in 324 reports and recommended further testing in 473 reports. Not all suggestions were related to previous values or were in line with guidelines. Most recommendations were regarding vitamin D and lipids (69% and 62% of medication review reports, respectively). Particularly, regarding renal impairment, pharmacists used their knowledge on dose adjustments and contraindications. In relation to full blood count, vitamin B12, and thyroid function, unjustified screenings were often recommended. In 26% of all reports, the pharmacists requested an array of tests without explaining the necessity for these tests. Conclusion and Relevance: Pharmacists provided useful advice based on the pathology data, which was concordant with national and international guidelines; however, in some cases, there was no rationale for the test recommendations provided. The outcome of the HMR program might be further enhanced if pharmacists had direct access to the patients’ pathology data

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)992-999
Number of pages8
JournalDICP, Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Volume52
Issue number10
Early online date1 May 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Pharmacists
Pathology
Guidelines
Vitamin B 12
Vitamin D
General Practitioners
Thyroid Gland
Kidney
Lipids
Drug Therapy

Cite this

@article{54c1782c0e1b45b3a5a66bcc689c86d2,
title = "Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews: A Retrospective Evaluation",
abstract = "Background: Laboratory tests can be important tools for the assessment of pharmacotherapy. Nonetheless, there are no previous studies that have explicitly focused on the role of pathology data in Home Medicines Reviews (HMR), an Australian medication review program. Objective: Evaluate pharmacists’ recommendations regarding laboratory testing in the medication review process. Methods: This retrospective review of HMRs assessed the prevalence of the pathology data provided by general practitioners. Additionally, the pharmacists’ recommendations based on these laboratory data were compared with national and international guidelines. Results: In total, 580 reports were evaluated. Of these, 179 reports did not contain any pathology data. Pharmacists commented on provided laboratory values in 324 reports and recommended further testing in 473 reports. Not all suggestions were related to previous values or were in line with guidelines. Most recommendations were regarding vitamin D and lipids (69{\%} and 62{\%} of medication review reports, respectively). Particularly, regarding renal impairment, pharmacists used their knowledge on dose adjustments and contraindications. In relation to full blood count, vitamin B12, and thyroid function, unjustified screenings were often recommended. In 26{\%} of all reports, the pharmacists requested an array of tests without explaining the necessity for these tests. Conclusion and Relevance: Pharmacists provided useful advice based on the pathology data, which was concordant with national and international guidelines; however, in some cases, there was no rationale for the test recommendations provided. The outcome of the HMR program might be further enhanced if pharmacists had direct access to the patients’ pathology data",
keywords = "aging, disease management, drug monitoring, drug utilization review, evidence-based practice, laboratory medicine, pathology, pharmaceutical care, Data Accuracy, Humans, Middle Aged, Australia/epidemiology, Male, Young Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Adult, Female, Retrospective Studies, Evidence-Based Practice/standards, General Practitioners/standards, Pharmacists/standards, Medication Reconciliation/methods, Drug Utilization Review/methods, Pathology, Clinical/standards, Drug Monitoring/methods, Professional Practice/standards, Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods, Aged, Disease Management",
author = "Buss, {Vera H} and Alison Shield and Sam Kosari and Mark Naunton",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1060028018777547",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "992--999",
journal = "DICP, Annals of Pharmacotherapy",
issn = "1060-0280",
publisher = "Harvey Whitney Books Company",
number = "10",

}

Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews : A Retrospective Evaluation. / Buss, Vera H; Shield, Alison; Kosari, Sam; Naunton, Mark.

In: DICP, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 52, No. 10, 01.10.2018, p. 992-999.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality Use of the Pathology Data in Home Medicines Reviews

T2 - A Retrospective Evaluation

AU - Buss, Vera H

AU - Shield, Alison

AU - Kosari, Sam

AU - Naunton, Mark

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Background: Laboratory tests can be important tools for the assessment of pharmacotherapy. Nonetheless, there are no previous studies that have explicitly focused on the role of pathology data in Home Medicines Reviews (HMR), an Australian medication review program. Objective: Evaluate pharmacists’ recommendations regarding laboratory testing in the medication review process. Methods: This retrospective review of HMRs assessed the prevalence of the pathology data provided by general practitioners. Additionally, the pharmacists’ recommendations based on these laboratory data were compared with national and international guidelines. Results: In total, 580 reports were evaluated. Of these, 179 reports did not contain any pathology data. Pharmacists commented on provided laboratory values in 324 reports and recommended further testing in 473 reports. Not all suggestions were related to previous values or were in line with guidelines. Most recommendations were regarding vitamin D and lipids (69% and 62% of medication review reports, respectively). Particularly, regarding renal impairment, pharmacists used their knowledge on dose adjustments and contraindications. In relation to full blood count, vitamin B12, and thyroid function, unjustified screenings were often recommended. In 26% of all reports, the pharmacists requested an array of tests without explaining the necessity for these tests. Conclusion and Relevance: Pharmacists provided useful advice based on the pathology data, which was concordant with national and international guidelines; however, in some cases, there was no rationale for the test recommendations provided. The outcome of the HMR program might be further enhanced if pharmacists had direct access to the patients’ pathology data

AB - Background: Laboratory tests can be important tools for the assessment of pharmacotherapy. Nonetheless, there are no previous studies that have explicitly focused on the role of pathology data in Home Medicines Reviews (HMR), an Australian medication review program. Objective: Evaluate pharmacists’ recommendations regarding laboratory testing in the medication review process. Methods: This retrospective review of HMRs assessed the prevalence of the pathology data provided by general practitioners. Additionally, the pharmacists’ recommendations based on these laboratory data were compared with national and international guidelines. Results: In total, 580 reports were evaluated. Of these, 179 reports did not contain any pathology data. Pharmacists commented on provided laboratory values in 324 reports and recommended further testing in 473 reports. Not all suggestions were related to previous values or were in line with guidelines. Most recommendations were regarding vitamin D and lipids (69% and 62% of medication review reports, respectively). Particularly, regarding renal impairment, pharmacists used their knowledge on dose adjustments and contraindications. In relation to full blood count, vitamin B12, and thyroid function, unjustified screenings were often recommended. In 26% of all reports, the pharmacists requested an array of tests without explaining the necessity for these tests. Conclusion and Relevance: Pharmacists provided useful advice based on the pathology data, which was concordant with national and international guidelines; however, in some cases, there was no rationale for the test recommendations provided. The outcome of the HMR program might be further enhanced if pharmacists had direct access to the patients’ pathology data

KW - aging

KW - disease management

KW - drug monitoring

KW - drug utilization review

KW - evidence-based practice

KW - laboratory medicine

KW - pathology

KW - pharmaceutical care

KW - Data Accuracy

KW - Humans

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Australia/epidemiology

KW - Male

KW - Young Adult

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Evidence-Based Practice/standards

KW - General Practitioners/standards

KW - Pharmacists/standards

KW - Medication Reconciliation/methods

KW - Drug Utilization Review/methods

KW - Pathology, Clinical/standards

KW - Drug Monitoring/methods

KW - Professional Practice/standards

KW - Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods

KW - Aged

KW - Disease Management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047377575&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/quality-pathology-data-home-medicines-reviews-retrospective-evaluation

U2 - 10.1177/1060028018777547

DO - 10.1177/1060028018777547

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 992

EP - 999

JO - DICP, Annals of Pharmacotherapy

JF - DICP, Annals of Pharmacotherapy

SN - 1060-0280

IS - 10

ER -