This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

Digital inclusion (which includes skills, accessibility and connectivity to the internet and digital devices) is a ‘super social determinant of health’ because it affects many aspects of life that influence health. Older people are especially vulnerable to digital exclusion. Existing digital inclusion interventions are commonly offered opportunistically to people who come into contact with services, or in specific locations. The lack of systematic identification of need unintentionally excludes older people who may be most in need of support, and that support is not addressing their needs.

This multi-method project includes six workstreams: (1) A survey of people aged 65+ to ask about digital use and engagement. Survey data will be used to develop a model that predicts digital exclusion from data available in primary care records. (2) Testing, via a further survey, the external validity of the model to identify those who are digitally excluded. (3) Interviews with community service providers to identify, understand and define the components of existing digital inclusion services for older people. Concurrently, a rapid review of the literature will identify evidence for interventions aimed at supporting digitally excluded adults aged 65+. (4) Interviews with people aged 65+ representing a range of digital use will explore factors from the COM-B model that influence digital behaviours—their capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) relating to digital engagement. Analysis outputs will identify the intersectional nature of barriers or facilitators to digital inclusion. (5) Co-production workshops with older people and community service providers will identify key components of interventions that are required to address digital exclusion. Components will be mapped against existing interventions, and the ‘best fit’ intervention(s) refined. An implementation plan will be developed in parallel. (6) Feasibility testing of the refined intervention(s) to assess acceptability and obtain feedback on content and delivery mechanisms.

This study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee on 23 October 2023 (ref. 23/YH/0234). Findings will be disseminated in academic journals and shared at webinars, seminars, conferences and events arranged by organisations operating across the digital inclusion and older people fields.

https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18306736