Room for Review was published in November 2002.
In 2004, Medicines Partnership commissioned an evaluation of the impact of Room for Review from Webstar Health Ltd, which is available to download below.
The objectives of the evaluation were:
To determine the extent to which the framework set out in Room for Review has been adopted as a standard for the introduction and implementation of medication reviews by PCTs
To determine the degree to which Room for Review has encouraged and assisted the development of patient-centred services by managers commissioning medication review services and clinicians delivering medication review services
To describe the perception of patients of their experience of medication reviews since the publication of Room for Review
Ultimately, the key question resonating throughout the evaluation was to what extent Room for Review had resulted in improved availability of patient centred, face to face medication review.
The evaluation was conducted using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.
The views of PCT stakeholders were collected through a one-day workshop and by a pre-piloted self-completion survey distributed via the National Prescribing Centre to PCT Pharmaceutical Advisors. A total of 153 responses (50.1%) were received and these were broadly representative when compared to PCTs participating in the NPC's Medicines Management Collaborative.
The opinions of various organisations and policy groups involved in medication review were collected through a series of stakeholder interviews.
Five focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a face-to-face medication review since the publication of Room for Review.
The results of the workshop, survey and stakeholder interviews are contained in part 1 of the evaluation, published on 21st March 2005. A second report, with results of the patient focus groups, was published on 5th December 2005. It was necessary to obtain Local Research Ethics Committee approval before proceeding with the focus groups and the additional time required for this approval significantly delayed the publication of the second report and executive briefing.