Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines: a systematic review

V. Paudyal, B. Okuyan, MC. Henman, D. Stewart, D. Fialová, A. Hazen, M. Lutters, A. Oleárová, AE. Weidmann, F. Wirth, CA. Cadogan, Z. Nazar

. 2024 ; 46 (1) : 56-69. [pub] 20231122

Language English Country Netherlands

Document type Systematic Review, Journal Article, Review

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 2011-02-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2011-02-01 to 1 year ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) from 2011-02-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 2011-02-01 to 1 year ago

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines. AIM: To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument. METHOD: Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24007398
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240423155925.0
007      
ta
008      
240412s2024 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s11096-023-01658-x $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37991663
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Paudyal, Vibhu $u School of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Sir Robert Aitken Institute for Medical Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. v.paudyal@bham.ac.uk $1 https://orcid.org/0000000241736490
245    10
$a Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines: a systematic review / $c V. Paudyal, B. Okuyan, MC. Henman, D. Stewart, D. Fialová, A. Hazen, M. Lutters, A. Oleárová, AE. Weidmann, F. Wirth, CA. Cadogan, Z. Nazar
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines. AIM: To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument. METHOD: Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a komunikace $7 D003142
650    12
$a farmacie $7 D010604
651    _2
$a Irsko $7 D007494
651    _2
$a Austrálie $7 D001315
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Okuyan, Betul $u Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye $1 https://orcid.org/0000000240232565
700    1_
$a Henman, Martin Charles $u Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
700    1_
$a Stewart, Derek $u College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar $1 https://orcid.org/0000000173608592
700    1_
$a Fialová, Daniela $u Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic $u Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hazen, Ankie $u Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Lutters, Monika $u Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Oleárová, Anna $u Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Bratislava University Hospital, Bratislava, Slovakia
700    1_
$a Weidmann, Anita E $u Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria
700    1_
$a Wirth, Francesca $u Department of Pharmacy, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
700    1_
$a Cadogan, Cathal A $u School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
700    1_
$a Nazar, Zachariah $u College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar $1 https://orcid.org/0000000341044221
773    0_
$w MED00180241 $t International journal of clinical pharmacy $x 2210-7711 $g Roč. 46, č. 1 (2024), s. 56-69
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37991663 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240412 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240423155922 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2081397 $s 1217165
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 46 $c 1 $d 56-69 $e 20231122 $i 2210-7711 $m International journal of clinical pharmacy $n Int J Clin Pharm $x MED00180241
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240412

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...