Managing common ambulatory conditions: Exploring clinical decision making performance between pharmacists and family physicians.

Background: Prescribing is part of the expanded scope of practice for pharmacists in Alberta, Canada. Given these responsibilities, clinical decision making (the outcome from the diagnostic and therapeutic decision making process) is an essential skill for pharmacists. The current study compared diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making between Additional Prescribing Authority (APA) pharmacists and family physicians using a set of common ambulatory clinical cases that both practitioners could encounter in the community as part of their daily practice. Objectives: To explore clinical decision making performance and behaviors between APA pharmacists and family physicians during the assessment and prescribing of common ambulatory conditions. Methods: Eight written ambulatory clinical cases were developed by a panel of experts in both family medicine and pharmacy that were commonly encountered in both professions' daily practice. Participating APA pharmacists and family physicians reviewed the cases and responded with likely diagnoses, recommended treatments, and reported confidence in therapeutic choices. The responses of 18 APA pharmacists and 9 family physicians in community practices were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic accuracy, confidence in diagnostic choices, and confidence in therapeutic choices between APA pharmacists and family physicians to these common ambulatory presentations. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary insights regarding the capabilities of pharmacists in the assessment of common ambulatory community conditions and suggests that APA pharmacists are making similar diagnostic and therapeutic decisions to family physicians. Future research could focus on examining the performance of pharmacists trained in different pharmacy education models, as well as their ability to provide clinical assessment in other specialties, or in more uncommon clinical scenarios.

Mapping the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in community pharmacies 2003-2021 using the Theoretical Domains Framework: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is an evidence-based approach to finding effective medication therapies. While community pharmacists are ideally situated to provide PGx testing, the extent of its implementation is limited within community pharmacies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore trends in the international peer-reviewed primary literature on community pharmacists' implementation of PGx and map the main findings on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: A literature search and 2-step screening were conducted per PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, community pharmacy setting, full papers, and empirical research. Data were collated in a data extraction form. The main findings were deductively mapped on the TDF with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 1176 identified documents screened, 39 were included in this scoping review. Four groups of research were identified: pre-implementation surveys (interviews, and focus groups [56%, n = 22]); PGx implementation (single cohort to assess feasibility [38%, n = 15]); PGx implementation (controlled study to assess feasibility [n = 1, 2.5%]); and efficacy of PGx (2.5%, n = 1). Most studies throughout the 4 groups sought pharmacists' perceptions (46%, n = 18) and used the quantitative paradigm (77%, n = 30). TDF mapping documented positive beliefs about the benefits of PGx testing as a part of the pharmacists' role. Barriers to PGx use included pharmacists' awareness of knowledge gaps, low confidence in interpreting and communicating PGx results, concerns about cost, privacy, and integration into pharmacy workflow. CONCLUSION: Research addressing PGx implementation within the community pharmacy evolved from assessing individuals' perceptions of PGx to determining the feasibility of PGx testing in pharmacies and evaluating the impact of PGx testing on patient outcomes in depression. Mapping the main findings on the TDF facilitates the development of multidimensional interventions, potentially targeting patients, pharmacists, and health policy.

Evaluation of Medication Incidents in a Long-term Care Facility Using Electronic Medication Administration Records and Barcode Technology.

Objective To describe the frequency, type, and severity of reported medication incidents that occurred at a long-term care facility (LTCF) despite electronic medication administration record and barcode-assisted medication administration (eMAR-BCMA) use. The study also contains analysis for the contribution of staff workarounds to reported medication administration errors (MAEs) using an established typology for BCMA workarounds, characterize if the eMAR-BCMA technology contributed to MAEs, and explore characteristics influencing incident severity. Design Retrospective incident report review. Setting A 239-bed LTCF in Alberta, Canada, that implemented eMAR-BCMA in 2013. Participants 270 paper-based, medication incident reports submitted voluntarily between June 2015 and October 2017. Interventions None. Results Most of the 264 resident-specific medication incidents occurred during the administration (71.9%, 190/264) or dispensing (28.4%, 75/264) phases, and 2.3% (6/264) resulted in temporary harm. Medication omission (43.7%, 83/190) and incorrect time (22.6%, 43/190) were the most common type of MAE. Workarounds occurred in 41.1% (78/190) of MAEs, most commonly documenting administration before the medication was administered (44.9%, 35/78). Of the non-workaround MAEs, 52.7% (59/112) were notassociated with the eMAR-BCMA technology, while 26.8% (30/112) involved system design shortcomings, most notably lack of a requirement to scan each medication pouch during administration. MAEs involving workarounds were less likely to reach the resident (74.4 vs 88.8%; relative risk = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97). Conclusion Administration and dispensing errors were the most reported medication incidents. eMAR-BCMA workarounds, and design shortcomings were involved in a large proportion of reported MAEs. Attention to optimal eMAR-BCMA use and design are required to facilitate medication safety in LTCFs.

What are the respiratory health research priorities in Alberta, Canada? A stakeholder consultation.

OBJECTIVE: The Respiratory Health Strategic Clinical Network (RHSCN) was launched to facilitate respiratory and sleep health through implementation of innovative, patient-centred, evidence-informed coordinated services in Alberta. In collaboration with project partners, the RHSCN aimed to determine the respiratory research priorities for Alberta. DESIGN: The four phases of this research prioritisation project were (1) identifying research questions from stakeholders, (2) determining which research questions had been answered in existing literature, (3) prioritising unanswered questions and (4) finalising the priorities through an inperson workshop. SETTING: The study occurred in Alberta, Canada over a 2-year period beginning in March 2017. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 448 patients, clinicians and other stakeholders consented to participate in the survey. RESULTS: A total of 595 possible questions were submitted, with 343 unique questions identified. Of the questions, 94 were out of scope, 155 answered by existing literature and 10 were combined with others, while 83 were determined to be unanswered in the literature. Stakeholders were surveyed again to prioritise the remaining 83 questions and they were reviewed by the project's Steering Committee (clinicians and patients). At the inperson workshop, the Steering Committee identified 17 research topics as priority areas for respiratory and sleep research in Alberta. CONCLUSION: A stakeholder-led research prioritisation process identified optimal clinical management/follow-up, equitable access to services, and management of social, psychological and mental health issues related to respiratory/sleep health as priority research areas.

Pharmacists as Personalized Medicine Experts (PRIME): Experiences Implementing Pharmacist-Led Pharmacogenomic Testing in Primary Care Practices.

Research exploring the integration of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing by pharmacists into their primary care practices (including community pharmacies) has focused on the "external" factors that impact practice implementation. In this study, additional "internal" factors, related to the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations of pharmacists that influence their ability to implement PGx testing, were analyzed. Semi-structured interview data from the Pharmacists as Personalized Medicine Experts (PRIME) study, which examined the barriers and facilitators to implementing PGx testing by pharmacists into primary care practice, were analyzed. Through thematic analysis, using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) domains as deductive codes, the authors identified the most relevant TDF domains and applied the behavioural change wheel (BCW) to generate intervention types to aid in the implementation of PGx testing. Pharmacists described how their professional identities, practice environments, self-confidence, and beliefs in the benefits of PGx impacted their ability to provide a PGx-testing service. Potential interventions to improve the implementation of the PGx service included preparing pharmacists for managing an increased patient load, helping pharmacists navigate the software and technology requirements associated with the PGx service, and streamlining workflows and documentation requirements. As interest in the wide-scale implementation of PGx testing through community pharmacies grows, additional strategies need to address the "internal" factors that influence the ability of pharmacists to integrate testing into their practices.

Including the Reason for Use on Prescriptions Sent to Pharmacists: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: In North America, although pharmacists are obligated to ensure prescribed medications are appropriate, information about a patient's reason for use is not a required component of a legal prescription. The benefits of prescribers including the reason for use on prescriptions is evident in the current literature. However, it is not standard practice to share this information with pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the research on how including the reason for use on a prescription impacts pharmacists. METHODS: We performed an interdisciplinary scoping review, searching literature in the fields of health care, informatics, and engineering. The following databases were searched between December 2018 and January 2019: PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and EMBASE. RESULTS: A total of 3912 potentially relevant articles were identified, with 9 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. The studies used different terminology (eg, indication, reason for use) and a wide variety of study methodologies, including prospective and retrospective observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and qualitative interviews and focus groups. The results suggest that including the reason for use on a prescription can help the pharmacist catch more errors, reduce the need to contact prescribers, support patient counseling, impact communication, and improve patient safety. Reasons that may prevent prescribers from adding the reason for use information are concerns about workflow and patient privacy. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to understand how the reason for use information should be provided to pharmacists. In the limited literature to date, there is a consensus that the addition of this information to prescriptions benefits patient safety and enables pharmacists to be more effective. Future research should use an implementation science or theory-based approach to improve prescriber buy-in and, consequently, adoption.

Ensuring quality qualitative research reporting in community pharmacy: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality for a sample of community pharmacy qualitative research articles based on the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines, data interpretation and use of theory. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE to identify qualitative research related to community pharmacy. Data were extracted and evaluated based on the SRQR standards, data interpretation level and use of theory. Adherence to standards was analysed using descriptive statistics. KEY FINDINGS: Eighty-one studies were retrieved through the database search (n = 81). Then, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria after screening abstracts and full texts. Twelve out of 21 SRQR were present in more than 80% of the studies. However, essential standards, such as research approach, reflexivity and trustworthiness techniques, were absent or partially present in 30 (97%) studies, 30 (97%) studies and 21 (68%) studies, respectively. Data interpretation level was descriptive in 27 (87%) studies and interpretive or partially interpretive in 4 (13%) studies. Theory was absent in 19 (60%) and implied, partially integrated or retrospectively applied in 12 (40%) of the studies. CONCLUSION: Trustworthiness and quality of qualitative inferences within community pharmacy research could be enhanced with increasing awareness about reporting; the approach and paradigm, reflexivity, trustworthiness techniques, data interpretation level and theoretical use.

Medication Education Provided to School-Aged Children: A Systematic Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the educational interventions regarding prescription and nonprescription medication use for school-aged children, we systematically reviewed evidence of programs available for this age group. METHODS: Searches in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were conducted. Search terms focused on: population education, school-age children, and medications. Studies were excluded if they were specific to a particular disease state or class of medication, drugs of misuse and illicit drugs. Data extraction included study design, location, educational intervention and duration, research methods, and main findings. RESULTS: We found 14 studies representing 8 separate projects. Six projects were identified in the gray literature. Projects ranged from individual sessions to national programs. Quantitative studies showed improvement in knowledge, medication literacy, and confidence. The adoption of medication education strategies was dependent on the educator's comfort level and beliefs regarding medication safety. CONCLUSIONS: Credible medication education resources are available and have been shown to improve students' knowledge. There remains a need for multifaceted implementation and evaluation strategies. Strategies and resources are available to implement interventions in communities to address medication education in school-age children. Frameworks should be used to facilitate the implementation of effective health promotion strategies around safe-medication use for school-aged children.

Transcatheter closure of a perimembranous ventricular septal defect with Nit-Occlud Lê VSD Coil: A French multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter perimembranous ventricular septal defect (pmVSD) closure remains challenging and is seldom used in France given the risk of atrioventricular block (AVB). pmVSD closure with the Nit-Occlud Lê VSD coil was recently introduced in France as an alternative to occluder devices. AIMS: To study the safety and feasibility of pmVSD closure with the Nit-Occlud Lê VSD coil. METHODS: All consecutives cases of pmVSD closure with the Nit-Occlud Lê VSD coil in 20 tertiary French centres were included between January 2015 and December 2018. RESULTS: Among 46 procedures in five centres, indications for pmVSD closure were left ventricle overload (76.1%), exertional dyspnoea (17.4%), history of infective endocarditis (4.3%) and mild pulmonary hypertension (2.2%). The median (interquartile [IQR]) age of the patients was 13.9 (5.7-31.8) years. Aneurismal tissue was identified in 91.3% of patients. VSD median (IQR) size was 8 (7-10) mm on the left ventricle side and 5 (4-6) mm on the right ventricle side. Implantation was successful in 40 patients (87.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.7-95.1%). Severe complications occurred in six patients (13.0%, 95% CI 4.9-26.3%), mainly severe haemolysis (8.7%, 95% CI 2.4-20.8%). One aortic valve lesion required surgical aortic valvuloplasty. Occurrence of severe complications was significantly related to the presence of haemolysis (P=0.001), residual shunt (P=0.007) and multi-exit VSD (P=0.005). Residual shunt was observed in 40% of cases with the implanted device shortly after closure and 15% after a median follow-up of 27 months. No immediate or delayed device embolization or complete AVB was recorded. CONCLUSION: pmVSD closure with the Nit-Occlud Lê VSD Coil is feasible in older children and adults. However, residual shunting (leading to haemolysis) is a dreaded complication that should not be tolerated. pmVSD closure with the Nit-Occlud Lê VSD as a therapeutic strategy remains controversial and is limited to selected patients.

Checking Inhaler Technique in the Community Pharmacy: Predictors of Critical Errors.

Inhaled medications are critical in the pharmaceutical management of respiratory conditions, however, the majority of patients demonstrate at least one critical error when using an inhaler. Since community pharmacists can be instrumental in addressing this care gap, we aimed to determine the rate and type of critical inhaler errors in community pharmacy settings, elucidate the factors contributing to inhaler technique errors, and identify instances when community pharmacists check proper inhaler use. Fourth year pharmacy students on community practice placement (n = 53) identified 200 patients where at least one error was observed in 78% of participants when demonstrating inhaler technique. Prevalent errors of the users were associated with metered dose inhaler (MDI) (55.6%), Ellipta® (88.3%), and Discus® (86.7%) devices. Overall, the mean number of errors was 1.09. Possession of more than one inhaler, use of rescue inhaler, and poor control of asthma were found to be significant predictors of having at least one critical error. In all participating pharmacies, inhaler technique is mainly checked on patient request (93.0%) and for all new inhalers (79.0%).

Family physicians' perceptions of pharmacists prescribing in Alberta.

Canadian pharmacists now have prescribing authority and little is documented about the physicians' perception, experience and relational dynamics evolving around the pharmacists' prescribing practice. The objective of this study was to explore Albertan family physicians' perceptions and experiences of pharmacists' prescribing practice. We used purposeful and maximum variation sampling method and semi-structured face to face or telephone interviews to collect data. From October 2014 to February 2016, we interviewed 12 family physicians in Alberta, having experience with pharmacist prescribing. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis using an interpretive description method, guided by "Relational Coordination" theory. NVivo software was used to manage the data. Three key beliefs (i.e., renewal versus initiate new prescription, community versus team pharmacists, and "I am responsible") about pharmacist prescribing were identified. Trust and communication were prominent themes which shaped participants' collaboration with pharmacist prescribers. Participants were classified as either "collaborative" or "consultative". Participants had greater collaboration with the team pharmacist prescribers compared to community pharmacists due to a higher level of trust and ease of communication. Renewal prescribing by any pharmacist was well accepted but participants showed hesitancy in accepting pharmacist-initiated prescriptions. Our findings provide insight into interprofessional collaboration and communication between physician and pharmacist prescribers.

"My pharmacist": Creating and maintaining relationship between physicians and pharmacists in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists and physicians are being increasingly encouraged to adopt a collaborative approach to patient care, and delivery of health services. Strong collaboration between pharmacists and physicians is known to improve patient safety, however pharmacists have expressed difficulty in developing interprofessional working relationships. There is not a significant body of knowledge around how relationships influence how and when pharmacists and physicians communicate about patient care. OBJECTIVES: This paper examines how pharmacists and primary care physicians communicate with each other, specifically when they have or do not have an established relationship. METHODS: Thematic analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with nine primary care physicians and 25 pharmacists, we examined how pharmacists and physicians talk about their roles and responsibilities in primary care and how they build relationships with each other. RESULTS: We found that both groups of professionals communicated with each other in relation to the perceived scope of their practice and roles. Three emerging themes emerged in the data focusing on (1) the different ways physicians communicate with pharmacists; (2) insights into barriers discussed by pharmacists; and (3) how relationships shape collaboration and interactions. Pharmacists were also responsible for initiating the relationship as they relied on it more than the physicians. The presence or absence of a personal connection dramatically impacts how comfortable healthcare professionals are with collaboration around care. CONCLUSION: The findings support and extend the existing literature on pharmacist-physician collaboration, as it relates to trust, relationship, and role. The importance of strong communication is noted, as is the necessity of improving ways to build relationships to ensure strong interprofessional collaboration.

Community pharmacists' clinical reasoning: a protocol analysis.

Background There are two fundamental approaches to clinical reasoning, intuitive and analytical. These approaches have yet to be well explored to describe how pharmacists make decisions to determine medication appropriateness. Objective (1) to identify the cognitive actions (i.e., operators) that pharmacists employ when they move from one cue (i.e., concept) to another, and (2) to describe the overall clinical reasoning approach taken by pharmacists when checking for medication appropriateness. Setting Pharmacists from a chain pharmacy in Canada were invited to participate in this study. Method Data was collected in private rooms using video recordings to capture simulated patient-pharmacist interactions of a new prescription medication. A simulated case scenario was used to gather two types of verbal reports, concurrent think-aloud and structured retrospective think-aloud from pharmacists. All verbal reports were video-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using protocol analysis. Main outcome measure Pharmacists' reasoning approaches when making medication appropriateness decisions. Results A total of 17 pharmacists participated. Pharmacists were most likely to use analytical clinical reasoning approaches when checking prescriptions and three used no clinical reasoning. When the pharmacists were asked specific questions regarding the decision-making model for pharmacy (i.e., check for indication, efficacy, safety, and adherence), 50% reported using analytical decision-making approaches, with a third of the decisions being made in hindsight. Conclusion The majority of the pharmacists followed an analytical decision-making approach to clinical reasoning. When the pharmacists were asked prompting questions about their medication-related decisions, they employed a combination of intuitive and analytical approaches. The pharmacists had the competency to check for medication appropriateness; though this knowledge was mostly restructured during the process of hindsight reasoning.

Exploring the role of teams and technology in patients' medication decision making.

OBJECTIVES: We know little about how electronic health records (EHRs) should be designed to help patients, pharmacists, and physicians participate in interprofessional shared decision making. We used a qualitative approach to understand better how patients make decisions with their health care team, how this information influences decision making about their medications, and finally, how this process can be improved through the use of EHRs. DESIGN: Participants from 4 regions across Canada took part in a semistructured interview and completed a brief demographic survey. The interview transcripts were thematically analyzed by means of the multidisciplinary framework method. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty participants, 18 years of age and older with at least one chronic illness, were recruited from across Canada. We interviewed participants in their homes, at the school of pharmacy, or another location of their choosing. RESULTS: We identified 4 main themes: (1) complexity of patient decision making: who, where, what, when, why; (2) relationships with physicians and pharmacists: who do I trust for what?; (3) accessing health information for decision making: how much and from where?; and (4) patients' methods of managing information for health decision making. Across the themes, participants appreciated expert advice from professionals and wanted to be informed about all options, despite concerns about limited knowledge. EHRs were perceived as a potential solution to many of the barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients make decisions with their health care providers as well as with family and friends. The pharmacist and physicians play different roles in helping patients in making decisions. We found that making EHRs accessible not only to health care providers but also to patients can provide a cohesive and clear context for making medication-related decisions. EHRs may facilitate clear communication, foster interprofessional understanding, and improve patient access to their health information. Future research should examine how to develop EHRs that are adaptive to user needs and desires.

"Being in Control of My Asthma Myself" Patient Experience of Asthma Management: A Qualitative Interpretive Description.

Asthma control can be achieved with effective and safe medication use; however, many patients are not controlled. Patients' perceptions of asthma, asthma treatment, and pharmacist roles can impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences and patient⁻pharmacist relationships in asthma care. Qualitative Interpretive Description method guided the study. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 11 patients recruited from personal contacts, pharmacies, and asthma clinics. Categories and themes were identified using inductive constant comparison. Themes indicated patients had a personalized common sense approach to asthma management, "go-to" health care provider, and prioritized patient⁻pharmacist relationships. Patients described their illness experiences and asthma control based on personal markers similar to the common sense model of self-regulation. Patients chose a family physician, asthma specialist, respiratory therapist, or pharmacist as an expert resource for asthma management. Patient perceived pharmacists' roles as information provider, adviser, or care provider. Pharmacists who develop a collaborative relationship with their asthma patients are better positioned to provide tailored education and self-management support. Inviting patients to share their perspective could increase patient engagement and uptake of personalised asthma action plans to achieve asthma control.

Physician and Pharmacist Medication Decision-Making in the Time of Electronic Health Records: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. METHODS: This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. CONCLUSIONS: We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.

Electronic Medication Administration Records in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To map the extent, range, and nature of research on the effectiveness, level of use, and perceptions about electronic medication administration records (eMARs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and identify gaps in current knowledge and priority areas for future research. DESIGN: Scoping review of quantitative and qualitative literature. SETTING: Literature review. PARTICIPANTS: Original research relating to eMAR in LTCF was eligible for inclusion. MEASUREMENTS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Library and performed general and advanced searches of Google to identify grey literature. Two authors independently screened for eligibility of studies. Independent reviewers extracted data regarding country of origin, design, study methods, outcomes studied, and main results in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 694 articles, of which 34 met inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 2006 and 2016 and were mostly from the United States (n=25). Twenty studies (59%) used quantitative methods, including surveys and analysis of eMAR data; 7 (21%) used qualitative methods, including interviews, focus groups, document review, and observation; and 7 (21%) used mixed methods. Three major research areas were explored: medication and medication administration error rates (n=11), eMAR benefits and challenges (n=19), and eMAR prevalence and uptake (n=15). Evidence linking eMAR use and reductions in medication errors is weak because of suboptimal study design and reporting. The majority of studies were descriptive and documented inconsistent benefits and challenges and low levels of eMAR implementation. CONCLUSION: Further investigation is required to rigorously evaluate the effect of standalone eMAR systems on medication administration errors and patient safety, the extent of eMAR implementation, pharmacists' perceptions, and cost effectiveness of eMAR systems in LTCF.