Dataset Information

General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.

Design

This qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate medicines, and stimulated interprofessional dialogue in relation to medication reviews. The purpose of the diaries was to document and structure the pedagogical process of academic detailing and contained quotes from 194 GP and 113 nurse participants in the sessions, and the pharmacists' reflections. The data was explored using thematic analysis.

Setting

Thirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden.

Subjects

GPs and nurses working in primary care.

Main outcome measures

Thematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.

Results

Five themes were identified: 1) Complexity in 3 'P': patients, pharmacotherapy, and primary care; 2) What, when, who? Clash between GPs' and nurses' experiences and guidelines; 3) Real-world problems and less-than-ideal solutions; 4) Eureka? Experiences with different steps during a medication review; and 5) Threats to GP autonomy.

Conclusion

GPs and nurses should participate in the construction and release of guidelines in order to increase their usability in clinical practice. Future research should analyse if alternative strategies such as condensed medical reviews and feedback on prescribing are easier to implement in primary care. Key points Complex medication reviews have been introduced on a large scale in Swedish primary care, but knowledge on GPs' and nurses' views on such reviews is lacking. In the context of primary care alternative strategies such as condensed medication reviews and feedback on prescribing may be more applicable than medication reviews according to guidelines. GPs and nurses should make contributions to the development of guidelines on medication reviews in order to increase their usability in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt-Mende K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6381541 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists.

Schmidt-Mende K K Hasselström J J Wettermark B B Andersen M M Bastholm-Rahmner P P

Scandinavian journal of primary health care 20180629 3

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.<h4>Design</h4>This qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate ...[more]

PMID: 29956572

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Australia, polypharmacy and medication-related problems are prevalent in the community. Therefore, medicines safety initiatives such as the Home Medicines Review (HMR) service are critical to health care provision. While the evidence continues to expand around HMR service, little is known of accredited pharmacists' experiences of HMR time investment.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore accredited pharmacists' experiences of HMR practice regarding time investment in the study's defined HMR Stages: 1 (initial paper-based assessment and review), 2 (in-home patient-accredited pharmacist consultation), and 3 (HMR report collation, generation, completion, and provision to the patient's General Practitioner, including any liaison time).MethodsAn electronic survey was developed and piloted by a panel of reviewers. Convenience sampling was used to distribute the final anonymous survey nationally via professional pharmacy organisations. Data were analyzed for frequency distributions and a chi-square test of independence was performed to evaluate any association between demographic variables relating to HMR time investment.ResultsThere was a total of 255 survey respondents, representing approximately 10% of national accredited pharmacist membership. The majority were experienced accredited pharmacists who had completed >100 HMRs (73%), were female (71%), and aged >40 years (60%). Regarding time investment for a typical instance of HMR, most spent: <30 minutes performing Stage 1 (46.7%), and 30-60 minutes performing Stage 2 (70.2%). In Stage 3, 40.0% invested 1-2 hours, and 27.1% invested 2-3 hours in HMR report collation and completion. Quantitative analysis revealed statistically significant (p=0.03) gender findings where females performed longer patient consultations than males (Stage 2). More HMR career experience resulted in statistically significant (p=0.01) less time performing Stage 1 (initial paper-based assessment and review); with a trend to less time performing Stage 3 (HMR report writing).ConclusionsAccredited pharmacists invest significant time in performing comprehensive HMRs, especially during in-home patient consultations and during HMR report collation and completion. Their significant HMR time investment as medicines experts provides insight for program and workforce considerations and warrants further research to better understand their work processes for optimizing medicines use and improving health.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners' views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM. METHODS:As part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development. RESULTS:The majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners' point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. "demanding high-user", positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM. CONCLUSIONS:While the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, "positive lists", adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists.

Project description:Rationale: Medical interventions that prolong life without achieving an effect that the patient can appreciate as a benefit are often considered futile or inappropriate by healthcare providers. In recent years, a multicenter guideline has been released with recommendations on how to resolve conflicts between families and clinicians in these situations and to increase public engagement. Although laypeople are acknowledged as important stakeholders, their perceptions and understanding of the terms "potentially inappropriate" or "futile" treatment have received little formal evaluation.Objectives: To evaluate the community perspective about the meaning of futile treatment.Methods: Six focus groups (two groups each of ages <65, 65-75, and >75 yr) were convened to explore what constitutes futile treatment and who should decide in situations of conflict between doctors and families. Focus group discussions were analyzed using grounded theory.Results: There were 39 participants aged 18 or older with at least one previous hospitalization (personal or by immediate relative). When asked to describe futile or inappropriate treatment, community members found the concept difficult to understand and the terminology inadequate, though when presented with a case describing inappropriate treatment, most participants recognized it as the provision of inappropriate treatment. Several themes emerged regarding participant difficulty with the concept, including inadequate physician-patient communication, lack of public emphasis on end-of-life issues, skepticism that medical treatment can be completely inappropriate, and doubts and fears that medical futility could undermine patient and/or family autonomy. Participants also firmly believed that in situations of conflict families should be the ultimate decision-makers.Conclusions: Public engagement in policy development and discourse around medical futility will first require intense education to familiarize the lay public about use of inappropriate treatment at the end of life.

Dataset Information

General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists.

Objective

Design

Setting

Subjects

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets