Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary members' perspectives on a pharmacist joining a rheumatology practice team.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pharmacist participation in chronic disease management benefits patients in many ambulatory settings. We explored the attitudes and perceptions among multidisciplinary members of a rheumatology team towards the skills and responsibilities of a pharmacist joining their practice.

Methods

The physicians, nurse, physiotherapist and staff of a rheumatology clinic were invited to participate in focus group and semistructured interviews. Practice members also completed an inventory of perceived health professional roles in the medication use process.

Results

Discussions with 2 physicians, a nurse, physiotherapist and 1 office administrator were conducted. Concepts related to 3 key themes included positively viewed pharmacist roles broadly related to activities that encompass provision of medication-related services for the patients, the providers and the practice. Examples of such care included educational tasks related to therapies (rheumatological and otherwise) and maintenance of accurate drug histories. These findings were reflected in high scores for perceived pharmacist roles in education and medication review responsibilities using the Medication Use Processes Matrix instrument. Most members were not comfortable with pharmacists conducting physical assessments and emphasized the need for a team member who could adapt to variations in workflow preferences across rheumatologists in the practice.

Interpretation

Perceived pharmacist roles expressed by existing rheumatology team members were largely consistent with the scope of pharmacist knowledge, skills and responsibilities in primary care.

Conclusion

Overall, existing multidisciplinary staff exhibited favourable attitudes towards a pharmacist joining their practice setting. Data from this job analysis exercise were used to inform the development of a job description for a rheumatology clinical pharmacist.

SUBMITTER: Wilbur K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4530358 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile the home is the most common setting for the provision of palliative care in Australia, a common problem encountered here is the inability of patient/carers to manage medications, which can lead to misadventure and hospitalisation. This can be averted through detection and resolution of drug related problems (DRPs) by a pharmacist; however, they are rarely included as members of the palliative care team. The aim of this study was to pilot a model of care that supports the role of a pharmacist in a community palliative care team. A component of the study was to develop a cost-effective model for continuing the inclusion of a pharmacist within a community palliative care service.MethodsThe study was undertaken (February March 2009-June 2010) in three phases. Development (Phase 1) involved a literature review; scoping the pharmacist's role; creating tools for recording DRPs and interventions, a communication and education strategy, a care pathway and evidence based patient information. These were then implemented in Phase 2. Evaluation (Phase 3) of the impact of the pharmacist's role from the perspectives of team members was undertaken using an online survey and focus group. Impact on clinical outcomes was determined by the number of patients screened to assess their risk of medication misadventure, as well as the number of medication reviews and interventions performed to resolve DRPs.ResultsThe pharmacist screened most patients (88.4%, 373/422) referred to the palliative care service to assess their risk of medication misadventure, and undertook 52 home visits. Medication reviews were commonly conducted at the majority of home visits (88%, 46/52), and a variety of DRPs (113) were detected at this point, the most common being "patient requests drug information" (25%, 28/113) and "condition not adequately treated" (22%, 25/113). The pharmacist made 120 recommendations in relation to her interventions.Fifty percent of online survey respondents (10/20) had interacted 10 or more times with the pharmacist for advice. All felt that the pharmacist's role was helpful, improving their knowledge of the different medications used in palliative care. The six team members who participated in the focus group indicated that there were several benefits of the pharmacist's contributions towards medication screening and review.ConclusionsThe inclusion of a pharmacist in a community palliative care team lead to an increase in the medication-related knowledge and skills of its members, improved patients' medication management, and minimised related errors. The model of care created can potentially be duplicated by other palliative care services, although its cost-effectiveness was unable to be accurately tested within the study.

Project description:BackgroundPreventable harm in healthcare is a growing public health challenge. In addition to the economic costs of safety failures, adverse drug events (ADE) may lead to complication or even death. Multidisciplinary care team involving a pharmacist appears to be an adequate response to prevention of adverse drug event. This qualitative systematic review aims to identify and describe multidisciplinary planned team-based care involving at least one pharmacist to limit or prevent adverse drug events in the adult patients.MethodsTo determine the type of interprofessional collaboration to prevent adverse drug event in which a pharmacist was involved, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of the literature of randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers screened trials in three databases: Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect. Prospective studies of at least three different health professionals' interventions, one of whom was a pharmacist in the last five years were included. Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality appraisal independently. We used TIDieR checklist to appraise articles quality.ResultsIn total 803 citations were retrieved, 34 were analysed and 16 full-text articles were reviewed. Only 3 studies published an implementation evaluation. More than half of the interventions (62%) targeted elderly patients including 6 whom lived in nursing homes. Studies outcomes were heterogeneous, and we did not perform a statistical analysis of the impact of these interventions. Most teams are composed of a physician/pharmacist/nurse trio (94%; 100%; 88%). Half of the teams were composed of the primary care physician. Other professionals were included such as physical therapists (25%), social worker (19%), occupational therapists (12%), and community health educator (6%). Multidisciplinary medication review was the most common intervention and was generally structured in four steps: data collection and baseline assessment, appraisal report by health professionals, a multidisciplinary medication review meeting and a patient follow-up.ConclusionsThe most common multidisciplinary intervention to prevent ADE in the adult population is the multidisciplinary drug review meeting at least the physician/pharmacist/nurse trio. Interventions target mostly elderly people in nursing homes, although complex chronic patients could benefit from this type of assessment.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42022334685.

Project description:BackgroundThe social, contextual, and behavioral determinants that influence care in patients at risk for invasive fungal diseases (IFD) are poorly understood. This knowledge gap is a barrier to the implementation of emerging antifungal stewardship (AFS) programs. We aimed to understand the barriers and enablers to AFS, opportunities for improvement, and perspectives of AFS for hematology patients at a major medical center in Australia.MethodsSemistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 35 clinicians from 6 specialties (hematology, infectious diseases, pharmacy, nursing, radiology, respiratory), followed by thematic analysis mapped to a behavioral change framework.ResultsAccess to fungal diagnostics including bronchoscopy was identified as the key barrier to rational prescribing. Collective decision making was the norm, aided by an embedded stewardship model with on-demand access to infectious diseases expertise. Poor self-efficacy/knowledge among prescribers was actually an enabler of AFS, because clinicians willingly deferred to infectious diseases for advice. A growing outpatient population characterized by frequent care transitions was seen as an opportunity for AFS but neglected by an inpatient focused model, as was keeping pace with emerging fungal risks. Ad hoc surveillance, audit, and feedback practices frustrated population-level quality improvement for all actors. Antifungal stewardship was perceived as a specialized area that should be integrated within antimicrobial stewardship but aligned with the cultural expectations of hematologists.ConclusionsAntifungal stewardship is multifaceted, with fungal diagnostics a critical gap and outpatients a neglected area. Formal surveillance, audit, and feedback mechanisms are essential for population-level quality improvement. Resourcing is the next challenge because complex immunocompromised patients require personalized attention and audit of clinical outcomes including IFD is difficult.