Dataset Information

Evaluation of a Collaborative Protocolized Approach by Community Pharmacists and General Medical Practitioners for an Australian Minor Ailments Scheme: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Internationally, governments have been investing in supporting pharmacists to take on an expanded role to support self-care for health system efficiency. There is consistent evidence that minor ailment schemes (MASs) promote efficiencies within the health care system. The cost savings and health outcomes demonstrated in the United Kingdom and Canada open up new opportunities for pharmacists to effect sustainable changes through MAS delivery in Australia.

Objective

This trial aims to evaluate the clinical, economic, and humanistic impact of an Australian Minor Ailments Service (AMAS) compared with usual pharmacy care in a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) in Western Sydney, Australia.

Methods

The cRCT design has an intervention group and a control group, comparing individuals receiving a structured intervention (AMAS) with those receiving usual care for specific health ailments. Participants will be community pharmacies, general practices, and patients located in Western Sydney Primary Health Network (WSPHN) region. A total of 30 community pharmacies will be randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. Each will recruit 24 patients, aged 18 years or older, presenting to the pharmacy in person with a symptom-based or product-based request for one of the following ailments: reflux, cough, common cold, headache (tension or migraine), primary dysmenorrhea, or low back pain. Intervention pharmacists will deliver protocolized care to patients using clinical treatment pathways with agreed referral points and collaborative systems boosting clinician-pharmacist communication. Patients recruited in control pharmacies will receive usual care. The coprimary outcomes are rates of appropriate recommendation of nonprescription medicines and rates of appropriate medical referral. Secondary outcomes include self-reported symptom resolution, health services resource utilization, and EuroQoL Visual Analogue Scale. Differences in primary outcomes between groups will be analyzed at the individual patient level accounting for correlation within clusters with generalized estimating equations. The economic impact of the model will be evaluated by cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis compared with usual care.

Results

The study began in July 2018. Thirty community pharmacies were recruited. Pharmacists from the 15 intervention pharmacies were trained. A total of 27 general practices consented. Pharmacy patient recruitment began in August 2018 and was completed on March 31, 2019.

Conclusions

This study may demonstrate the efficacy of a protocolized intervention to manage minor ailments in the community and will assess the clinical, economic, and humanistic impact of this intervention in Australian pharmacy practice. Pharmacists supporting patient self-care and appropriate self-medication may contribute to greater efficiency of health care resources and integration of self-care in the health system. The proposed model and developed educational content may form the basis of a national MAS service in Australia, using a robust framework for management and referral for common ailments.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618000286246; http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12618000286246.aspx.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/13973.

SUBMITTER: Dineen-Griffin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6709938 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative care approaches between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists have received international recognition for medication optimization and deprescribing efforts. Although specialist providers have been shown to influence deprescribing, their profession so far remains omitted from collaborative care approaches for medication optimization. Similarly, while explorative studies on role perception and collaboration between GPs and pharmacists grow, interaction with specialists for medication optimization is neglected. Our qualitative study therefore aims to explore GPs', community pharmacists' and specialist providers' role perceptions of deprescribing, and to identify interpersonal as well as structural factors that may influence collaborative medication optimization approaches.MethodSeven focus-group discussions with GPs, community pharmacists and community specialists were conducted in Hesse and Lower Saxony, Germany. The topic guide focused on views and experiences with deprescribing with special attention to inter-professional collaboration. We conducted conventional content analysis and conceptualized emerging themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework.ResultsTwenty-six GPs, four community pharmacists and three community specialists took part in the study. The main themes corresponded to the four domains 'Social/professional role and identity' (1), 'Social influences' (2), 'Reinforcement' (3) and ´Environmental context and resources' (4) which were further described by beliefs statements, that is inductively developed key messages. For (1), GPs emerged as central medication managers while pharmacists and specialists were assigned confined or subordinated tasks in deprescribing. Social influences (2) encompassed patients' trust in GPs as a support, while specialists and pharmacists were believed to threaten GPs' role and deprescribing attempts. Reinforcements (3) negatively affected GPs' and pharmacists' effort in medication optimization by social reprimand and lacking reward. Environmental context (4) impeded deprescribing efforts by deficient reimbursement and resources as well as fragmentation of care, while informational and gate-keeping resources remained underutilized.ConclusionUnderstanding stakeholders' role perceptions on collaborative deprescribing is a prerequisite for joint approaches to medication management. We found that clear definition and dissemination of roles and responsibilities are premise for avoiding intergroup conflicts. Role performance and collaboration must further be supported by structural factors like adequate reimbursement, resources and a transparent continuity of care.

Project description:Studies focused on comprehensive assessment of self-perceived competency of community pharmacists to manage minor ailments are scanty despite that self-perceived competency is a valid determinant of task performance. The objectives of the study were to assess community pharmacists' self-perceived competency to manage fourteen common minor ailments in Qatar, and identify its significant predictors. A cross-sectional assessment of 307 community pharmacists was conducted with a pre-tested 20-item questionnaire. Self-perceived competency was assessed with nine elements on a scale of 1-10 (Maximum obtainable score: Each minor ailment = 90; each element = 140). Mann-Whitney U and bivariate logistic regression were used for data analyses. The response rate was 91.9% (282/307). The majority of the respondents were males (68.1%; 192/282), within the age range of 31-40 years (55.3%; 156/282). The minor ailments with the highest median competency score were constipation (76), and cold/catarrh (75) while travel sickness (69), and ringworm (69) had the lowest. The two condition-specific competency elements with the highest median score were recommendation of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines (115), and provision of instructions to guide its use (115). Ability to differentiate minor ailments from other medical conditions had the lowest median competency score (109). The significant predictors self-perceived competency were female gender (OR = 2.39, 95%CI: 1.34-4.25, p = 0.003), and working for chain pharmacies (OR = 2.54, 95%CI: 1.30-4.96, p = 0.006). Overall, Community pharmacists' self-perceived competency was adequate for majority of the common minor ailments, and it was highest for constipation and cold/catarrh, and specifically for the recommendation of OTC medicines and provision of instructions to guide its use. However, diagnostic ability to differentiate minor ailments from other medical conditions with similar features had the lowest median competency score. Female gender and working in chain pharmacies were the significant predictors of self-perceived competency to manage minor ailments.

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:BackgroundAustralian and international guidelines recommend benzodiazepines and related drugs (hereafter "benzodiazepines") as second-line, short-term medications only. Most benzodiazepines are prescribed by general practitioners (GPs; family physicians). Australian GP registrars ("trainees" or "residents" participating in a post-hospital training, apprenticeship-like, practice-based vocational training program), like senior GPs, prescribe benzodiazepines at high rates. Education within a training program, and experience in general practice, would be expected to reduce benzodiazepine prescribing.ObjectiveTo establish if registrars' prescribing of benzodiazepines decreases with time within a GP training program DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training multi-site cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Registrars of five of Australia's 17 Regional Training Providers. Analyses were restricted to patients ??16 years.Main measuresThe main outcome factor was prescription of a benzodiazepine. Conditional logistic regression was used, with registrar included as a fixed effect, to assess within-registrar changes in benzodiazepine-prescribing rates. The "time" predictor variable was "training term" (6-month duration Terms 1-4). To contextualize these "within-registrar" changes, a mixed effects logistic regression model was used, including a random effect for registrar, to assess within-program changes in benzodiazepine-prescribing rates over time. The "time" predictor variable was "year" (2010-2015).Key resultsOver 12 terms of data collection, 2010-2015, 1161 registrars (response rate 96%) provided data on 136,809 face-to-face office-based consultations. Two thousand six hundred thirty-two benzodiazepines were prescribed (for 1.2% of all problems managed). In the multivariable model, there was a significant reduction in within-program benzodiazepine prescribing over time (year) (p?=?<?0.001, OR?=?0.94, CI?=?0.90, 0.97). However, there was no significant change in 'within-registrar' prescribing over time (registrar Term) (p?=?0.92, OR?=?1.00 [95% CI?=?0.94-1.06]).ConclusionsDespite a welcome temporal trend for reductions in overall benzodiazepine prescribing from 2010 to 2015, there is still room for improvement and our findings suggest a lack of effect of specific GP vocational training program education and, thus, an opportunity for targeted education.

Project description:The oral contraceptive pill (OCP) remains the most popular form of prescription contraception in many countries, despite adherence difficulties for many. Uptake of long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which are less reliant on user adherence, remains low. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of, and attitudes towards, prescription contraception amongst samples of contraception users, general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists.We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 18 contraception users, 18 GPs and 9 pharmacists. The study took place in Galway, Republic of Ireland between June and September 2014. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Overall, contraception users were more familiar with the OCP, and all the women interviewed began their prescription contraception journey using this method. All participants identified episodes of poor adherence throughout the reproductive life course. The identified barriers for use of LARCs were lack of information, misconceptions, lack of access and high cost. In contrast, GPs believed that adherence to the OCP was good and stated they were more likely to prescribe the OCP than other methods, as they were most familiar with this option. Barriers to prescribing LARCSs were time, cost to practice, training and deskilling. Pharmacists also believed that adherence to the OCP was generally good and that their role was limited to dispensing medication and providing information when asked.There are contrasting perspectives between contraception service providers and contraceptive users. Training for healthcare providers is required to support informed contraceptive choice and adherence. It is necessary to address the practice barriers of cost and lack of time, to promote better communication around adherence issues and prescription contraception options. There is a need for more easily-accessible public health information to promote awareness on all methods of prescription contraception.

Project description:IntroductionEffective antibiotic options in general practice for patients with infections are declining significantly due to antibiotic over-prescribing and emerging antibiotic resistance. To better improve antibiotic prescribing by general practitioner (GP), pharmacist-GP collaborations have been promoted under antibiotic stewardship programmes. However, there is insufficient information about whether and how pharmacists help GPs to more appropriately prescribe antibiotics. This systematic review aims to determine whether pharmacist-led or pharmacist-involved interventions are effective at improving antibiotic prescribing by GPs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of English language randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies cited in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL Plus, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases will be conducted. Studies will be included if a pharmacist is involved as the intervention provider and GPs are the intervention recipients in general practice setting. Data extraction and management will be conducted using Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data abstraction tools and a template for intervention description and replication. The Cochrane and ROBINS-I risk of bias assessment tools will be used to assess the methodological quality of studies. Primary outcome measures include changes (overall, broad spectrum and guidelines concordance) of GP-prescribed antibiotics. Secondary outcomes include quality of antibiotic prescribing, delayed antibiotic use, acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Meta-analysis for combined effect and forest plots, ?2 test and I2 statistics for detailed heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis will be performed if data permit. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidance will be used to report findings.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary, personal or confidential data are being collected in this study. The findings will be disseminated to national and international scientific sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42017078478.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsIn total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs.ConclusionsBoth GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently.