Dataset Information

General practitioner and pharmacist collaboration: does this improve risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes? A systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major cause of morbidity and premature mortality globally. Despite the availability of low-cost evidence based medicines, there is a significant treatment gap in those with established or at high risk of CVD in the primary care setting. Pharmacist-based interventions have shown to improve patient outcomes for many chronic diseases including CVD. However, there is little synthesised evidence that has examined the effects of collaborative care between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists on patients' cardiovascular risk outcomes. This protocol aims to outline the methods employed in a systematic review of current literature to assess whether interprofessional collaboration between GPs and pharmacists has an impact on improving cardiovascular risk outcomes among patients in the primary care setting.

Methods and analysis

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be identified through database searches, scanning reference lists of relevant studies, hand searching of key journals and citation searching of key papers. Two independent reviewers will screen studies against eligibility criteria and extract data using standardised forms. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, will be searched from the beginning of each database until October 2018. Primary outcome includes improvement in cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, due to GP and pharmacist cooperation. Secondary outcome is to describe the different types of GP and pharmacist collaborative models of care. A narrative synthesis of findings will be presented. A meta-analysis will be performed if the data are homogenous.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not require ethics approval. The results of the systematic review described within this protocol will be disseminated through presentations at relevant conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The methods will be used to inform future reviews.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017055259.

SUBMITTER: Chaudhri K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, up to 50% of nursing home residents are admitted to a hospital at least once a year. It is often unclear whether this is beneficial or even harmful. Successful interprofessional collaboration and communication involving general practitioners (GPs) and nurses may improve medical care of nursing home residents. In the previous interprof study, the six-component intervention package interprof ACT was developed to facilitate collaboration of GPs and nurses in nursing homes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the interprof ACT intervention.MethodsThis multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial compares nursing homes receiving the interprof ACT intervention package for a duration of 12 months (e.g. comprising appointment of mutual contact persons, shared goal setting, standardised GPs' home visits) with a control group (care as usual). A total of 34 nursing homes are randomised, and overall 680 residents recruited. The intervention package is presented in a kick-off meeting to GPs, nurses, residents/relatives or their representatives. Nursing home nurses act as change agents to support local adaption and implementation of the intervention measures. Primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of hospitalisation within 12 months. Secondary outcomes include admissions to hospital, days admitted to hospital, use of other medical services, prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication and quality of life. Additionally, health economic and a mixed methods process evaluation will be performed.DiscussionThis study investigates a complex intervention tailored to local needs of nursing homes. Outcomes reflect the healthcare and health of nursing home residents, as well as the feasibility of the intervention package and its impact on interprofessional communication and collaboration. Because of its systematic development and its flexible nature, interprof ACT is expected to be viable for large-scale implementation in routine care services regardless of local organisational conditions and resources available for medical care for nursing home residents on a regular basis. Recommendations will be made for an improved organisation of primary care for nursing home residents. In addition, the results may provide important knowledge and data for the development and evaluation of further strategies to improve outpatient care for elderly care-receivers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03426475 . Initially registered on 7 February 2018.

Project description:BackgroundHuman Papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States (US), with 12 cancer causing strains. Vaccination rates in the southern US fall below the national average. Pharmacists provide an opportunity to improve vaccination rates.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to 1) identify barriers and facilitators to providing the HPV vaccine and Vaccines for Children (VFC) program participation in pharmacies and clinics, and 2) assess pharmacy staff, clinic staff, and parent perceptions of 3 collaboration models to improve HPV vaccination.MethodsA developmental formative evaluation was conducted with pharmacy staff, primary care clinic staff, and parents of adolescent children. Interview guides were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination and VFC participation were explored. Additionally, acceptability of 3 collaboration models were explored: 1) a shared-responsibility model in which a physician provides the first dose of HPV vaccine with the second provided in the pharmacy, 2) a pharmacy-based model in which a clinic refers patients to the pharmacy to receive both doses, and 3) an insourced model in which pharmacists schedule days to provide the vaccine in the collaborating clinic.ResultsTwenty-nine interviews were conducted between August 2019 and June 2020. Both pharmacy and clinic staff had positive views toward the HPV vaccine and vaccinations in general. Pharmacists and physicians reported parental awareness and education as a barrier to HPV vaccination. Counseling about HPV vaccine was reported as being more time-consuming because of the stigma associated with the vaccine. Parents were willing to have their children vaccinated for HPV in the pharmacy but desired their child's physician be involved in the immunization process. The shared-responsibility model was the most favored of the 3 collaboration models.ConclusionPerceptions of the HPV vaccine and vaccination in pharmacies were positive. Collaboration between clinics and pharmacies to improve HPV vaccination rates is viewed positively by pharmacy staff, clinic staff, and parents. This study will guide implementation of pharmacist-physician collaborative models to improve vaccination through pharmacy participation in the VFC program and HPV vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundChanging demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.MethodsA multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.ResultsMedian number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).ConclusionThe pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Project description:Background: Treatment of diabetes requires a strict treatment scheme which demands patient self-management. Pharmacists are in a good position to provide self-management support. This review examines whether pharmacist-led interventions to support self-management in diabetes patients improve clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. An extended literature search was conducted with the keywords "pharmacist," "diabetes," and "self-management" using the electronic databases Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from the beginning of the database through September 2017. In addition reference lists of systematic reviews and included studies were searched. Eligibility criteria included; self-management intervention tested with an RCT, performed in an ambulatory care setting, led by a pharmacist and reporting at least one clinical- or patient-reported outcome. Primary outcomes were HbA1c (-as this is a clinical parameter for long-term diabetes follow-up), self-management and components of intervention. Secondary outcomes were blood glucose, blood pressure, BMI, lipids, adherence to medication, quality of life, and diabetes knowledge. For the meta-analysis HbA1c values were pooled with a random-effects model in Revman 5.3. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Twenty-four studies representing 3,610 patients were included. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions included education on diabetes complications, medication, lifestyle, and teaching of self-management skills. Some studies focused on patient needs through a tailored intervention. No key components for a successful self-management intervention could be identified. Pharmacist-led self-management interventions improve HbA1c levels with a mean of 0.71% (CI -0.91, -0.51; overall effect P < 0.0001) and had a positive effect on blood pressure (SBP -5.20 mm Hg [-7.58; -2.92], DBP -3.51 mmHg [-6.00; -1.01]), BMI (-0.49 kg/m2 [-0.79; -0.19]), lipids (total cholesterol -0.19 mmol/l [-0.33; -0.05], LDL-C mmol/l -0.16 [-0.26; -0.06], HDL-C 0.32 mmol/l [0.02; 0.61]), self-management skill development, and adherence to medication. Conclusion: Pharmacist-led self-management interventions significantly improve HbA1c values in diabetes patients. These results underline the added value of pharmacists in patient-related care. Pharmacists should offer self-management support to diabetes patients in order to improve diabetes outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care physicians are particularly prone to high levels of burnout and poor well-being. Despite this, no qualitative studies have specifically investigated the best ways to improve well-being and prevent burnout in primary care physicians. Previous interventions within primary care have been person-oriented and mainly focused on mindfulness, but there has been no prior research on whether general practitioners (GPs) deem this to be the best approach.ObjectivesTo explore strategies that could improve GP well-being and reduce or prevent burnout, based on GP perceptions of the workplace factors that affect their levels of well-being and burnout.MethodsFive focus groups were conducted, with 25 GPs (locums, salaried, trainees, and partners) in the UK, between September 2015 and February 2016. Focus groups took place in GP practices and private meeting rooms. Discussions were centered on the workplace factors that they perceived to influence their well-being, along with strategies that they use either personally, or as a practice, to try and prevent burnout. Furthermore, strategies that could feasibly be implemented by individuals and practices to improve well-being, as well as changes that are needed by groups or organizations that are external to their practice (e.g., the government) to improve the working conditions, were explored. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts.ResultsBased on the contributors to burnout and workplace well-being that the participants identified, the following feasible strategies were suggested: compulsory daily coffee breaks, increasing self- and organizational awareness of the risks of burnout and mentoring or buddy systems. System-level organizational changes were voiced as vital, however, to improve the well-being of all primary care physicians. Increasing resources seemed to be the ideal solution, to allow for more administrative staff and GPs.ConclusionThese strategies merit further consideration by researchers, physicians, healthcare organizations and policy makers both in the UK and beyond. Failure to do so may result in healthcare staff becoming even more burntout, potentially leading to a loss of doctors from the workforce.