Back

Exploring the implementation and integration of structured medication reviews in primary care: A qualitative evaluation using normalization process theory

Reidy, C.; Seeley, A.; Tucker, K.; Bateman, P. A.; Clark, C. E.; Clegg, A.; Ford, G. A.; Gadhia, S.; Hinton, W.; Hobbs, F. D. R.; Jawad, S.; Khunti, K.; Lip, G. Y. H.; de Lusignan, S.; Mant, J.; McCahon, D.; Meza-Torres, B.; Payne, R. A.; Perera-Salazar, R.; Seidu, S.; Sheppard, J. P.; Williams, M.; Wright Drakesmith, C.; McManus, R. J.; Barnes, R. K.

2025-08-24 primary care research
10.1101/2025.08.21.25334150 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundStructured Medication Reviews (SMRs) were introduced into primary care in England for patients living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs), polypharmacy, increased frailty, in care homes or at risk of medicines-related harm. SMRs aim to optimise the therapeutic potential of medication and reduce medicine-related harms through holistic reviews. AimTo explore the day-to-day work being undertaken with, and by, clinical pharmacists to implement, embed and integrate SMRs into practice, and consider how to optimise SMRs. Design and settingQualitative one-to-one interviews with clinical pharmacists undertaking SMRs and SMR service leaders/managers (SMR leads) in England between February 2023 and November 2024. MethodParticipants were recruited as part of a wider evaluation of the roll-out of SMRs in England. Interview topic guides and qualitative data analysis were informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). ResultsEighteen clinical pharmacists and five SMR leads participated. Participants reported often having to explain the purpose of SMRs and clinical pharmacists roles to patients, partly due to patients not being informed about SMRs. Participants valued SMRs and expressed that trust-building and tailored consultations were important for optimising medications. Integration varied due to high workload, inconsistent leadership support, inadequate administrative/pharmacist technician resource and lack of training. However, participants described SMRs as valuable for identifying and addressing unmet needs and supporting holistic, person-centred care across MLTC pathways. ConclusionThe findings demonstrate the need for improved information on SMRs for patients and primary care teams, adequate and appropriate resource allocation, and enhanced support for consultation skills training to optimise medicines use. How this fits in- SMRs were formally introduced to primary care in 2020 to address the challenges of managing polypharmacy in an ageing population with increasing patient complexity and MLTCs. - SMRs were introduced alongside the expansion of clinical pharmacist roles in General Practice as a comprehensive, person-centred review of all a patients medicines. - This qualitative evaluation examines the day-to-day work of implementing and embedding SMRs, highlighting challenges to implementation and integration. - Our findings reveal challenges to the sustainability of SMRs and identify opportunities for optimisation, including addressing pharmacists training needs and resource allocation for administrative and pharmacy technician support.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
14.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
5
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
7
Antibiotics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
8
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
10
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
12
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
13
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
14
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
15
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
19
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
20
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
22
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
23
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%
25
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
26
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%