Exploring the organisation, operation and inquiries of Centres for Medicines Information: insights from a narrative review and questionnaire

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Centres for Medicines Information (CMIs) are core components in providing evidence-based recommendations to practitioners, thus reducing medication errors. This study examined the organisational and operational features of international CMIs and the types of inquiries they address. Its findings aim to support the development of new CMIs and to suggest recommendations for improvement. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed as the database. In addition, an anonymous e-questionnaire was sent to hospital pharmacists through the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists. RESULTS: Findings from 20 studies and surveys from seven CMIs showed that most were hospital-based. The literature suggested that they provided regional services while survey data indicated they typically served a single institution. They mostly operated during regular working hours, with some offering 24/7 availability. CMIs primarily supported healthcare professionals by addressing medication-related queries. However, proactive information dissemination via newsletters and education is also important, as well as promoting the service. Digital documentation was more common in newer CMIs, while older ones lacked such integration. The use of Frequently Asked Question pages was limited across all CMIs. Electronic health record-based inquiry systems were rare, found in only three hospitals surveyed. Pharmacists were the main personnel, although the levels of training varied. To ensure effectiveness, quality assurance efforts focused on documenting references and responses, validating answers and ensuring timely replies. CONCLUSION: This study offers an overview of CMIs, aiming to guide their organisation and practice. The findings suggest that future CMIs should prioritise regional collaboration and digital integration to boost efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.