Miguel Ángel Gastelurrutia

Bio: Miguel Ángel Gastelurrutia is an academic researcher from University of Granada. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pharmacy & Pharmacist. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 55 publications receiving 849 citations. Previous affiliations of Miguel Ángel Gastelurrutia include American Pharmacists Association.

Drug related problems identified by European community pharmacists in patients discharged from hospital.

Abstract: Objective: To examine the nature and frequency of DRPs in community pharmacies among patients discharged from hospitals in several countries, and to examine several variables related to these drug related problems. Method: The study was performed in 112 community pharmacies in Europe: Austria, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Community pharmacists asked patients with a prescription after discharge from hospital between February and April 2001 to participate in the study. A patient questionnaire was used to identify drug related problems. Pharmacists documented drug related problems, pharmacy interventions, type of prescriber and patient and pharmacy variables. Results: 435 patients were included in the study. Drug related problems were identified in 277 patients (63.7%). Uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the aim or function of the drug (133; 29.5%) and side effects (105; 23.3%) were the most common DRPs. Practical problems were reported 56 times (12.4%) by patients. Pharmacists revealed 108 problems (24.0%) concerning dosage, drug duplication, drug interactions and prescribing errors. Patients with more changes in their drug regimens (drugs being stopped, new drugs started or dosage modifications) and using more drugs were more likely to develop DRPs. Community pharmacists recorded 305 interventions in 205 patients with DRPs. Pharmacists intervened mostly by patient medication counselling (39.0%) and practical instruction to the patient (17.7%). In 26.2% the intervention was directed towards the prescriber. In 28 cases (9.2%) the pharmacists’ intervention led to a change of the drug regimen. Conclusion: This study shows that a systematic intervention by community pharmacists in discharged patients, or their proxies, is able to reveal a high number of DRPs that might be relevant for patient health outcomes. There should be more initiatives to insure continuity of care, since DRPs after discharge from hospital seem to be very common.

Facilitators for practice change in Spanish community pharmacy

Abstract: Objective To identify and prioritise facilitators for practice change in Spanish community pharmacy. Setting Spanish community pharmacies. Method Qualitative study. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists (n = 15) and pharmacy strategists (n = 18), and the results were examined using the content analysis method. In addition, two nominal groups (seven community pharmacists and seven strategists) were formed to identify and prioritise facilitators. Results of both techniques were then triangulated. Main outcome measures Facilitators for practice change. Results Twelve facilitators were identified and grouped into four domains (D1: Pharmacist; D2: Pharmacy as an organisation; D3: Pharmaceutical profession; D4: Miscellaneous). Facilitators identified in D1 include: the need for more clinical education at both pre- and post-graduate levels; the need for clearer and unequivocal messages from professional leaders about the future of the professional practice; and the need for a change in pharmacists’ attitudes. Facilitators in D2 are: the need to change the reimbursement system to accommodate cognitive service delivery as well as dispensing; and the need to change the front office of pharmacies. Facilitators identified in D3 are: the need for the Spanish National Professional Association to take a leadership role in the implementation of cognitive services; the need to reduce administrative workload; and the need for universities to reduce the gap between education and research. Other facilitators identified in this study include: the need to increase patients’ demand for cognitive services at pharmacies; the need to improve pharmacist-physician relationships; the need for support from health care authorities; and the need for improved marketing of cognitive services and their benefits to society, including physicians and health care authorities. Conclusion Twelve facilitators were identified. Strategists considered clinical education and pharmacists’ attitude as the most important, and remuneration of little importance. Community pharmacists, in contrast, considered remuneration as the most important facilitator for practice change.

Structural process and implementation programs of pharmaceutical care in different countries.

Abstract: Pharmaceutical care started in the nineties in the United States and has rapidly extended in many other countries. Although there are different trends, such as clinical pharmacy services, cognitive services, medication management, medication review, they all share the same philosophy and objectives, namely "the responsible provision of drug therapy for the purpose of achieving definite outcomes that improve a patient's quality of life". To attain these objectives, a pharmaceutical care process has to be followed point-by-point in order to detect possible medication-related problems. Furthermore, pharmacists have to work together with patients, and ultimately with physicians to establish a care plan. This methodology requires basic skills of documentation and communication and therefore, it is important to establish implementation programs aimed at community-, hospital-, and consultant pharmacists, and to consider PC as a basic element of University teaching programs and postgraduate studies. Moreover, there are still barriers that hinder the provision of this service and have to be overcome. In this article, we have revised the implementation process and the existing projects in many countries and we conclude that despite the enormous amount of work, there is still much to be done from sides of Administration and pharmacists themselves.

Customers’ expectations and satisfaction with a pharmacy not providing advanced cognitive services

Abstract: To assess customers’ expectations and satisfaction with a community pharmacy which does not provide advanced professional cognitive services (APCS). Method: A non-validated questionnaire was designed; the questionnaire included items on expectations with pharmacy services and on satisfaction with the existing services. An independent interviewer was appointed to survey people leaving the pharmacy; the questionnaire was administered on two randomly chosen days. The mean age of respondents (n = 61) was 46 years. Expectations: The most highly ranked item was “Drug available in the pharmacy” (4.97 on a 5-point Likert scale), followed by “Having queries and questions about health problems answered” (4.84). People found it easy “To seek advice on health problems or about medicines from the pharmacist at the counter” (4.48). The lowest ranked item was “reduced waiting time” (3.13). The overall Satisfaction with pharmacy services was high (4.89). Customers reported a high level of satisfaction in a pharmacy where advanced cognitive services were not available. However, this should not discourage pharmacists from implementing APCS, because patients’ expectations are based only on experiences with current distributive services, which fulfill their perceived needs.

The impact of a medication review with follow-up service on hospital admissions in aged polypharmacy patients.

Abstract: Aims The aims were to assess the impact of a medication review with follow-up (MRF) service provided in community pharmacy to aged polypharmacy patients on the number of medication-related hospital admissions and to estimate the effect on hospital costs Methods This was a sub-analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trials carried out in 178 community pharmacies in Spain Pharmacies in the intervention group (IG) provided a comprehensive medication review during 6 months Pharmacists in the comparison group (CG) delivered usual care For the purposes of this sub-analysis, an expert panel of three internal medicine specialists screened the hospitalizations occurring during the main study, in order to identify medication-related hospitalizations Inter-rater reliability was measured using Fleiss's kappa Hospital costs were calculated using diagnosis related groups Results One thousand four hundred and three patients were included in the main study and they had 83 hospitalizations Forty-two hospitalizations (506%) were medicine-related, with a substantial level of agreement among the experts (kappa = 065, 95% CI 052, 078, P < 001) The number of medication-related hospitalizations was significantly lower in patients receiving MRF (IG 11, GC 31, P = 0042) The probability of being hospitalized was 37 times higher in the CG (odds ratio 37, 95% CI 12, 113, P = 0021) Costs for a medicine-related hospitalization were €6672 Medication-related hospitalization costs were lower for patients receiving MRF [IG: €94 (SD 917); CG: €301 (SD 2102); 95% CI 359, 3780, P = 0018] Conclusion MRF provided by community pharmacists might be an effective strategy to balance the assurance of the benefit from medications and the avoidance of medication-related hospitalizations in aged patients using polypharmacy

How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques.

Abstract: Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how 'consensus' is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of 'experts.' Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.

Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups

Abstract: The nominal group technique (NGT) is a method to elicit healthcare priorities. Yet, there is variability on how to conduct the NGT, and limited guidance on how to analyse a diverse sample of multiple groups. This paper addresses some of this ambiguity, and explores whether different approaches to analysis provide the same outcome/s. Conceptual papers and empirical studies were identified via PubMed and informed an adapted version of the NGT. Twenty-six nominal groups were conducted, which provided in-depth knowledge on how to best conduct this method. Pilot group data were used to compare different analysis methods and to explore how this impacted on reported outcomes. Data analyses for large data-sets are complex; thematic analysis is needed to be able to conduct across group comparisons of participant priorities. Consideration should be given not just to the strength, i.e. sum of votes, or relative importance of the priority, but to the voting frequency, i.e. the popularity of the idea amongst participants; our case study demonstrated that this can affect priority rankings for those ideas with the same score. As a case study, this paper provides practical information on analysis for complex data sets. Researchers need to consider more than one analysis process to ensure that the results truly reflect participant priorities. A priority that has a high score may not necessarily reflect its popularity within the group; the voting frequency may also need to be considered.

Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: An overview of systematic reviews.

Abstract: Background Pharmacist-led medication review is a collaborative service which aims to identify and resolve medication-related problems. Objective To critically evaluate published systematic reviews relevant to pharmacist-led medication reviews in community settings. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 1995 to December 2015. Systematic reviews of all study designs and outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Systematic reviews of moderate or high quality (AMSTAR ≥ 4) were included in the data synthesis. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two investigators. Results Of the 35 relevant systematic reviews identified, 24 were of moderate and seven of high quality and were included in the data synthesis. The largest overall numbers of unique primary research studies with favorable outcomes were for diabetes control (78% of studies reporting the outcome), blood pressure control (74%), cholesterol (63%), medication adherence (56%) and medication management (47%). Significant reductions in medication and/or healthcare costs were reported in 35% of primary research studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 12 systematic reviews. Results from the meta-analyses suggested positive impacts on glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, cholesterol, and number and appropriateness of medications. Conflicting findings were reported in relation to hospitalization. No meta-analyses reported reduced mortality. Conclusion Moderate and high quality systematic reviews support the value of pharmacist-led medication review for a range of clinical outcomes. Further research including more rigorous cost analyses are required to determine the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on humanistic and economic outcomes. Future systematic reviews should consider the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative studies to comprehensively evaluate medication review.