Search

There are many different inhaler devices and medications on the market for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with over 230 drug-delivery system combinations available. However, despite the abundance of effective treatment options, the achieved disease control in clinical practice often remains unsatisfactory. In this context, a key determining factor is the match or mismatch of an inhalation device with the characteristics or needs of an individual patient. Indeed, to date, no ideal device exists that fits all patients, and a personalized approach needs to be considered. Several useful choice-guiding algorithms have been developed in the recent years to improve inhaler–patient matching, but a comprehensive tool that translates the multifactorial complexity of inhalation therapy into a user-friendly algorithm is still lacking. To address this, a multidisciplinary expert panel has developed an evidence-based practical treatment tool that allows a straightforward way Supplementary Information The online version of choosing the right inhaler for each patient.

The implementation of a new service is often challenging when translating research findings into routine clinical practices. This paper presents the results of the implementation study of a pilot project for a diabetes and cardiovascular diseases risk-assessment service in Belgian community pharmacies. To evaluate the implementation of the service, a mixed method was used that follows the RE-AIM framework. During the testing stage, 37 pharmacies participated, including five that dropped out due to a lack of time or COVID-19-related temporary obligations. Overall, 502 patients participated, of which 376 (74.9%) were eligible for according-to-protocol analysis. Of these, 80 patients (21.3%) were identified as being at high risk for the targeted diseases, and 100 (26.6%) were referred to general practice for further investigation. We presented the limited effectiveness and the key elements influencing optimal implementation. Additional strategies, such as interprofessional workshops, a data-sharing platform, and communication campaigns, should be considered to spread awareness of the new role of pharmacists. Such strategies could also promote collaboration with general practitioners to ensure the follow-up of patients at high risk. Overall, this service was considered easy to perform and feasible in practice but would require financial and external support to ensure its effectiveness, sustainability, and larger-scale implementation., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3 S)-tool was recently developed as an explicit screening tool to detect drug-related problems (DRPs) and to help in performing medication reviews. In this study, we aimed (a) to describe the characteristics of the detected DRPs and the subsequent pharmacists' recommendations with their acceptance and implementation rate resulting from a pharmacist-led medication review using the GheOP3 S-tool and (b) to assess the potential impact of the intervention., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Objective To investigate the provision of pharmaceutical care by community pharmacists across Europe and to examine the various factors that could affect its implementation. Methods A questionnaire-based survey of community pharmacies was conducted within 13 European countries. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section focussed on demographic data and services provided in the pharmacy. The second section was a slightly adapted version of the Behavioral Pharmaceutical Care Scale (BPCS) which consists of three main dimensions (direct patient care activities, referral and consultation activities and instrumental activities). Results Response rates ranged from 10–71% between countries. The mean total score achieved by community pharmacists, expressed as a percentage of the total score achievable, ranged from 31.6 (Denmark) to 52.2% (Ireland). Even though different aspects of pharmaceutical care were implemented to different extents across Europe, it was noted that the lowest scores were consistently achieved in the direct patient care dimension (particularly those related to documentation, patient assessment and implementation of therapeutic objectives and monitoring plans) followed by performance evaluation and evaluation of patient satisfaction. Pharmacists who dispensed higher daily numbers of prescriptions in Ireland, Germany and Switzerland had significantly higher total BPCS scores. In addition, pharmacists in England and Ireland who were supported in their place of work by other pharmacists scored significantly higher on referral and consultation and had a higher overall provision of pharmaceutical care. Conclusion The present findings suggest that the provision of pharmaceutical care in community pharmacy is still limited within Europe. Pharmacists were routinely engaged in general activities such as patient record screening but were infrequently involved in patient centred professional activities such as the implementation of therapeutic ob