15th PCNE Working Conference 2027

Workshop Facilitators:
Hans De Loof (1) and Ronja Woltersdorf (2)
Isabel Waltering (3) , Eline Tobback (1) and Maja Brumer (1,4)
1 Laboratory of Physiopharmacology, University of Antwerp Belgium
2 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, Germany
3 Institute for Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical Pharmacy, University of Münster, Germany
4 Institute of Postgraduate Education for Pharmacists (IPSA), Brussels, Belgium

Background: 

Medication review (MR) is a key component of pharmaceutical care, but unstandardised reporting and implementation limit quality assurance, education, research, and the adoption of best practices across Europe^1-4.  Furthermore, the absence of structured documentation using standardised taxonomies or coding systems hinders continuity of care, patient follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration. Because MR must remain patient-centred, a rigid approach is impractical. However, a standardised MR taxonomy would provide a flexible documentation framework, helping to overcome barriers to care and facilitate research.

Aims of the workshop

The workshop aims to develop expert consensus on the core components, domains, and
documentation elements of medication review, resulting in a preliminary taxonomy (Version 0.9) suitable for future validation and implementation across European practice settings. This framework would support harmonisation of clinical follow-up, education, competency assessment, research, and quality assurance. Because MR is inherently complex, comprehensive standardization is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, the framework seeks to standardize the description and documentation of MR activities while preserving the flexibility needed to accommodate diverse practice settings and individualized patient care.

Learning objectives

After this workshop, participants will be able to explain the variation in MR terminology, scope and documentation practices across Europe, and discuss its implications for care continuity, education, research and quality assurance. They will compare MR documentation tools from different countries, identify common and differing elements, and relate classification systems to the review process.

Participants will apply affinity mapping (K-J method) to organise MR components into thematic domains and use the Nominal Group Technique to prioritise them against agreed criteria. They will distinguish components suitable for initial versus follow-up reviews and justify these choices based on clinical relevance, patient benefit, feasibility and resource use. Participants will be able to draft operational component definitions and relate them to existing PCNE classifications.

Workshop activities
Preparatory phase (before the conference)

During the preparatory phase, existing MR documentation and templates will be collected, catalogued, and analysed. The phase will examine similarities and differences in MR documentation practices across Europe and selected international settings. Data extraction, coding, and preliminary mapping will be conducted using a structured approach, ensuring consistency, transparency, and scientific rigour throughout the development of the inventory. Where appropriate, established taxonomies and classification systems, including those related to drug-related problems, medication adherence, and other pharmaceutical care domains, will be incorporated to support terminological alignment and build on existing concepts^1,5-8.

The PCNE Moodle platform will facilitate document sharing and discussion, while AI-assisted translation tools will support the analysis of multilingual materials and cross-country comparisons.  Prior to the workshop, participants will be able to access this inventory and propose emerging pharmaceutical care concepts or future MR service components for inclusion in the workshop analysis.

Activities during the Workshop
Four sessions of 3 hours are planned and are spread over several days.

Session 1 will introduce the aims and methodology and will work through the pre-collected MR documentation templates, annotating differences in terminology, scope and practice across countries. The output is an annotated overview and a preliminary component inventory, which feeds the consensus work in sessions 2 and 3.

Session 2 will use Affinity mapping to group components into thematic domains based on conceptual relationships and clinical function. Adapted from the K-J Method, it organises complex information into meaningful clusters and is widely used in healthcare quality improvement ^9-11. Working first in small groups and subsequently in plenary, participants will critically review a pre-clustered draft list supplied by the facilitators. Groups will be invited to revise, merge, split, and rename categories to achieve a shared structure and terminology. This process will identify common elements across MR types, agree on working definitions and terminology, and organise them into a coherent framework.

Session 3 will use Nominal group technique (NGT) to prioritise the resulting domains and components. Participants will independently rank components against predefined criteria, including clinical relevance, feasibility, patient benefit, follow-up feasibility, resource requirements. Rankings will then be evaluated to achieve consensus on their relative importance ^12-14.

Session 4 will consolidate the prioritised framework into Version 0.9 of the MR Component Taxonomy, differentiating components belonging to an initial medication review from those more appropriate for follow-up. Participants will draft operational definitions — what is done and what is recorded — and agree a core set of documentation fields per component, keeping the terminology consistent with existing PCNE definitions and classifications, including the MR typology and the DRP Classification V9.1, and mapping components onto national templates. Version 0.9 is intentionally preliminary, a basis for pilot testing, validation and refinement. Outputs are the draft taxonomy  version 0.9, a crosswalk table, and a post-workshop roadmap for validation, dissemination and future development.

References

1 )  Griese-Mammen, N. et al. PCNE definition of medication review: reaching agreement. International journal of clinical pharmacy 40, 1199-1208 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-018-0696-7

2) Blenkinsopp, A., Bond, C. & Raynor, D. K. Medication reviews. British journal of clinical pharmacology 74, 573-580 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04331.x

3) Robberechts, A. et al. Medication Review: What’s in a Name and What Is It about? Pharmacy 12, 39 (2024).

4) Craske, M., Hardeman, W., Steel, N. & Twigg, M. J. Pharmacist-led medication reviews: A scoping review of systematic reviews. PLoS One 19, e0309729 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309729

5) Alharthi, M. S. et al. Taxonomy development for term standardization in activity resulting from medication review processes: a Delphi study. The International journal of pharmacy practice 32, 180-185 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riae002

6) Schindler, E., Richling, I. & Rose, O. Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) drug-related problem classification version 9.00: German translation and validation. International journal of clinical pharmacy 43, 726-730 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01150-w

7) Vrijens, B. et al. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. British journal of clinical pharmacology 73, 691-705 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04167.x

8 ) Omophub.com. A Practical Guide to Modern Pharmacovigilance.  (2026).

9) (ASQ), A. S. f. Q. What is an Affinity Diagram? K-J Method | ASQ.  

10) NHS, E. Online library of Quality, Service Improvement and Redesign tools. Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) Cycles and the Model for Improvement. england. nhs. uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/qsir-pdsa-cycles-model-for-improvement.pdf (Last accessed: 18 July 2022.) (2022).

11 ) Health, M. D. o. Tools and Training – Affinity Diagram – MN Dept. of Health.  

12) Rankin, N. M. et al. Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science. BMC Med Res Methodol 16, 110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0210-7

13) McMillan, S. S., King, M. & Tully, M. P. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International journal of clinical pharmacy 38, 655-662 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x

14) McMillan, S. S. et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 14, 92-108 (2014).