Objective: to measure the impact of pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review with elderly care home residents. Design: randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against usual care. Setting: sixty-five care homes for the elderly in Leeds, UK. Participants: a total of 661 residents aged 65+ years on one or more medicines. Intervention: clinical medication review by a pharmacist with patient and clinical records. Recommendations to general practitioner for approval and implementation. Control patients received usual general practitioner care. Main outcome measures: primary: number of changes in medication per participant. Secondary: number and cost of repeat medicines per participant; medication review rate; mortality, falls, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, Barthel index, Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). Results: the pharmacist reviewed 315/331 (95.2%) patients in 6 months. A total of 62/330 (18.8%) control patients were reviewed by their general practitioner. The mean number of drug changes per patient were 3.1 for intervention and 2.4 for control group (P < 0.0001). There were respectively 0.8 and 1.3 falls per patient (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for GP consultations per patient (means 2.9 and 2.8 in 6 months, P = 0.5), hospitalisations (means 0.2 and 0.3, P = 0.11), deaths (51/331 and 48/330, P = 0.81), Barthel score (9.8 and 9.3, P = 0.06), SMMSE score (13.9 and 13.8, P = 0.62), number and cost of drugs per patient (6.7 and 6.9, P = 0.5) (£42.24 and £42.94 per 28 days). A total of 75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist recommendations were accepted by the general practitioner; and 76.6% (433/565) of accepted recommendations were implemented. Conclusions: general practitioners do not review most care home patients’ medication. A clinical pharmacist can review them and make recommendations that are usually accepted. This leads to substantial change in patients’ medication regimens without change in drug costs. There is a reduction in the number of falls. There is no significant change in consultations, hospitalisation, mortality, SMMSE or Barthel scores.

Introduction: Care home residents are at particular risk from medication errors, and our objective was to determine the prevalence and potential harm of prescribing, monitoring, dispensing and administration errors in UK care homes, and to identify their causes. Methods: A prospective study of a random sample of residents within a purposive sample of homes in three areas. Errors were identified by patient interview, note review, observation of practice and examination of dispensed items. Causes were understood by observation and from theoretically framed interviews with home staff, doctors and pharmacists. Potential harm from errors was assessed by expert judgement. Results: The 256 residents recruited in 55 homes were taking a mean of 8.0 medicines. One hundred and seventy-eight (69.5%) of residents had one or more errors. The mean number per resident was 1.9 errors. The mean potential harm from prescribing, monitoring, administration and dispensing errors was 2.6, 3.7, 2.1 and 2.0 (0 = no harm, 10 = death), respectively. Contributing factors from the 89 interviews included doctors who were not accessible, did not know the residents and lacked information in homes when prescribing; home staff’s high workload, lack of medicines training and drug round interruptions; lack of team work among home, practice and pharmacy; inefficient ordering systems; inaccurate medicine records and prevalence of verbal communication; and difficult to fill (and check) medication administration systems. Conclusions: That two thirds of residents were exposed to one or more medication errors is of concern. The will to improve exists, but there is a lack of overall responsibility. Action is required from all concerned.

To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication review in chronic pain management. Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINHAL, CENTRAL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant websites were searched for randomized controlled trials published in the English language involving adults with chronic pain. Studies were included if one of the intervention arms had received pharmacist-led medication review independently or as part of a multidisciplinary intervention. Risk of bias was assessed for all the included studies. The search strategy yielded 583 unique articles including 5 randomized controlled trials. Compared with control, meta-analysis showed that participants in the intervention group had: a 0.8-point reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.28 to -0.36] and a 0.7-point reduction (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.20) at 6 months; a 4.84 point (95% CI, -7.38 to -2.29) and -3.82 point (95% CI, -6.49 to -1.14) improvement in physical functioning on a 0- to 68-point function subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index at 3 and 6 months, respectively; and a significant improvement in patient satisfaction equivalent to a "small to moderate effect." Pharmacist-led medication review reduces pain intensity and improves physical functioning and patient satisfaction. However, the clinical significance of these findings remain uncertain due to small effect size and nature of reported data within clinical trials that limits recommendation of wider clinical role of pharmacist in chronic pain management.

Anticholinergic medications block the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Many medications have anticholinergic properties, and the cumulative effect of these medications is termed anticholinergic burden. Increased anticholinergic burden can have short-term side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and urinary retention as well as long-term effects including dementia, worsening physical function and falls. We carried out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) looking at randomised controlled trials addressing interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older adults. We identified seven papers suitable for inclusion in our SR and MA. Interventions included multi-disciplinary involvement in medication reviews and deprescribing of AC medications. Pooled data revealed no significant difference in outcomes between control and intervention group for falls (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52–1.11, n = 647), cognition (mean difference = 1.54, 95% CI: −0.04 to 3.13, n = 405), anticholinergic burden (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.11 to 0.18, n = 710) or quality of life (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.12, n = 461). Overall, there was no significant difference with interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden. As we did not see a significant change in anticholinergic burden scores following interventions, it is likely other outcomes would not change. Short follow-up time and lack of training and support surrounding successful deprescribing may have contributed.