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

BACKGROUND: Structured 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. AIM: To 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 SETTING: Qualitative one-to-one interviews with clinical pharmacists undertaking SMRs and SMR service leaders/managers (SMR leads) in England between February 2023 and November 2024. METHOD: Participants 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). RESULTS: Eighteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2026-04-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2025.0522
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Andrew Paul Clegg, Richard Hobbs, Bernardo Meza-Torres, James P Sheppard et al.
British Journal of General Practice
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
article

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

Andrew Paul Clegg, Richard Hobbs, Bernardo Meza-Torres, James P Sheppard, William Hinton, Deborah McCahon, Anna Seeley, Samuel Seidu, Gary A. Ford, Claire Reidy, Christopher Elles Clark, Richard J. McManus, Paul Bateman, Marney Williams, Adaku J Agwunobi, Kamlesh Khunti, Katherine Tucker, Rupert A. Payne, Jonathan Mant, Seema Gadhia, Rafael Perera, Cynthia Wright-Drakesmith, Simon de Lusignan, Sundus Jawad, Gregory Y H Lip
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Structured 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. AIM: To 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 SETTING: Qualitative one-to-one interviews with clinical pharmacists undertaking SMRs and SMR service leaders/managers (SMR leads) in England between February 2023 and November 2024. METHOD: Participants 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). RESULTS: Eighteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

British Journal of General Practice
Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB), University of Leeds (GB), University of Bradford (GB), Medical University of Białystok (PL), University of Liverpool (GB), University of Leicester (GB), University of Exeter (GB), University of Cambridge (GB), Frimley Park Hospital (GB), At Bristol (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital (GB), Exeter Primary Care (GB), Science Oxford (GB), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Oxford Academic Health Science Network (GB), NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (GB), Liverpool John Moores University (GB), Aalborg University (DK)
Curtin University of Technology
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.