Dataset Information

Community pharmacist participation in a practice-based research network: a report from the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet).

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To describe the experiences and opinions of pharmacists serving as site coordinators for the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet). SETTING:Retail chain, independent, and hospital/health system outpatient community pharmacies throughout Indiana, with a total of 127 pharmacy members represented by 26 site coordinators. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION:Rx-SafeNet, a statewide practice-based research network (PBRN) formed in 2010 and administered by the Purdue University College of Pharmacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Barriers and facilitators to participation in available research studies, confidence participating in research, and satisfaction with overall network communication. RESULTS:22 of 26 site coordinators participated, resulting in an 85% response rate. Most (72.2%) of the respondents had received a doctor of pharmacy degree, and 13.6% had postgraduate year (PGY)1 residency training. The highest reported benefits of PBRN membership were an enhanced relationship with the Purdue University College of Pharmacy (81% agreed or strongly agreed) and enhanced professional development (80% agreed or strongly agreed). Time constraints were identified as the greatest potential barrier to network participation, reported by 62% of respondents. In addition, the majority (59%) of survey respondents identified no prior research experience. Last, respondents' confidence in performing research appeared to increase substantially after becoming network members, with 43% reporting a lack of confidence in engaging in research before joining the network compared with 90% reporting confidence after joining the network. CONCLUSION:In general, Rx-SafeNet site coordinators appeared to experience increased confidence in research engagement after joining the network. While respondents identified a number of benefits associated with network participation, concerns about potential time constraints remained a key barrier to participation. These findings will assist network leadership in identifying opportunities to positively increase member participation in the future.

SUBMITTER: Patel P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536969 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community pharmacist participation in a practice-based research network: a report from the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet).

Patel Puja P Hemmeger Heather H Kozak Mary Ann MA Gernant Stephanie A SA Snyder Margie E ME

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA 20151101 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the experiences and opinions of pharmacists serving as site coordinators for the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet).<h4>Setting</h4>Retail chain, independent, and hospital/health system outpatient community pharmacies throughout Indiana, with a total of 127 pharmacy members represented by 26 site coordinators.<h4>Practice description</h4>Rx-SafeNet, a statewide practice-based research network (PBRN) formed in 2010 and administered by the Purd ...[more]

PMID: 26547598

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication errors, adverse drug events, and nonadherence are the predominant causes of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients and lead to increased healthcare utilization. Research has demonstrated that clinical pharmacists have the unique education and training to identify these events early and develop strategies to mitigate or prevent downstream sequelae. In addition, studies utilizing mHealth interventions have demonstrated success in improving the control of chronic conditions that lead to kidney transplant deterioration. OBJECTIVE:The goal of the prospective, randomized TRANSAFE Rx study is to measure the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led, mHealth-based intervention, as compared to usual care, in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS:TRANSAFE Rx is a 12-month, parallel, two-arm, 1:1 randomized controlled clinical trial involving 136 participants (68 in each arm) and measuring the clinical and economic effectiveness of a pharmacist-led intervention which utilizes an innovative mobile health application to improve medication safety and health outcomes, as compared to usual posttransplant care. RESULTS:The primary outcome measure of this study will be the incidence and severity of MEs and ADRs, which will be identified, categorized, and compared between the intervention and control cohorts. The exploratory outcome measures of this study are to compare the incidence and severity of acute rejections, infections, graft function, graft loss, and death between research cohorts and measure the association between medication safety issues and these events. Additional data that will be gathered includes sociodemographics, health literacy, depression, and support. CONCLUSIONS:With this report we describe the study design, methods, and outcome measures that will be utilized in the ongoing TRANSAFE Rx clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03247322: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03247322 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xcSUnuzW).

Project description:Studies have demonstrated that physician/pharmacist collaboration can improve management of chronic conditions.The purpose of this study was to determine whether a correlation exists between existing clinical pharmacy services within a practice-based research network (PBRN) and provider attitudes and beliefs regarding implementing a new pharmacy intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).A validated survey was completed by one clinical pharmacist from each office. This instrument evaluated the current clinical pharmacy services provided in the medical office. TPB instruments were developed that measured beliefs concerning implementation of a clinical pharmacy intervention for either blood pressure or asthma. The pharmacy services and TPB surveys were then administered to physicians and pharmacists in 32 primary care offices throughout the United States.Physicians returned 321 (35.9%) surveys, while pharmacists returned 40 (75.5%). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients generally ranged from 0.65 to 0.98. TPB subscale scores were lower in offices rated with lower pharmacy service scores, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was no correlation between clinical pharmacy service score and providers' TPB subscale scores. In both the hypertension and asthma groups, pharmacists scores were significantly higher than physicians' scores on the attitudes subscale in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively).Pharmacists consistently scored higher than physicians on the TPB, indicating that they felt the hypertension or asthma intervention would be more straightforward for them to implement than did physicians. There was no significant correlation between clinical pharmacy service scores and attitudes toward implementing a future physician/pharmacist collaborative intervention using the TPB. Future studies should investigate the ability of the TPB instrument to predict implementation of a similar intervention in offices of physicians never exposed to clinical pharmacy services.

Project description:To measure the effect of nurse practitioner and pharmacist consultations on the appropriate use of medications by patients.We studied patients in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. The main trial intervention was provision of multidisciplinary team care and the main outcome was quality and processes of care for chronic disease management.Patients were recruited from a single publicly funded family health network practice of 8 family physicians and associated staff serving 10 000 patients in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont.A total of 120 patients 50 years of age or older who were on the practice roster and who were considered by their family physicians to be at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes.A pharmacist and 1 of 3 nurse practitioners visited each patient at his or her home, conducted a comprehensive medication review, and developed a tailored plan to optimize medication use. The plan was developed in consultation with the patient and the patient's doctor. We assessed medication appropriateness at the study baseline and again 12 to 18 months later.We used the medication appropriateness index to assess medication use. We examined associations between personal characteristics and inappropriate use at baseline and with improvements in medication use at the follow-up assessment. We recorded all drug problems encountered during the trial.At baseline, 27.2% of medications were inappropriate in some way and 77.7% of patients were receiving at least 1 medication that was inappropriate in some way. At the follow-up assessments these percentages had dropped to 8.9% and 38.6%, respectively (P < .001). Patient characteristics that were associated with receiving inappropriate medication at baseline were being older than 80 years of age (odds ratio [OR] = 5.00, 95% CI 1.19 to 20.50), receiving more than 4 medications (OR = 6.64, 95% CI 2.54 to 17.4), and not having a university-level education (OR = 4.55, 95% CI 1.69 to 12.50).We observed large improvements in the appropriate use of medications during this trial. This might provide a mechanism to explain some of the reductions in mortality and morbidity observed in other trials of counseling and advice provided by pharmacists and nurses.NCT00238836 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Project description:IntroductionMedication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.AimTo examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.MethodsA literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).ConclusionThere is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

Project description:BackgroundThe source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality.DesignA retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database.ResultsQuality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (?2?=?118.99, p?0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR?=?1.85, P <0.001 and OR?=?1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR?=?4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources.ConclusionResearch report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.

Dataset Information

Community pharmacist participation in a practice-based research network: a report from the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet).

Publications

Community pharmacist participation in a practice-based research network: a report from the Medication Safety Research Network of Indiana (Rx-SafeNet).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure