Dataset Information

Capturing pharmacists' impact in general practice: an e-Delphi study to attempt to reach consensus amongst experts about what activities to record.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the UK, there is ongoing integration of pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service in primary care. Evaluation of the service involves national measures that require pharmacists to record their work, on the general practice clinical computer systems, using electronic activity codes. No national agreement, however, has been established on what activities to record. The purpose of this study was to attempt to reach consensus on what activities general practice-based pharmacists should record.

Methods

The e-Delphi method was chosen as it is an excellent technique for achieving consensus. The study began with an initial stage in which screening of a general practice clinical computer system and discussion groups with pharmacists from two 'pharmacists in general practice' sites identified 81 codes potentially relevant to general practice-based pharmacists' work. Twenty-nine experts (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the two sites along with experts recruited through national committees) were then invited by e-mail to participate as a panel in three e-Delphi questionnaire rounds. In each round, panellists were asked to grade or rank codes and justify their choices. In every round, panellists were provided with anonymised feedback from the previous round which included their individual choices along with their co-panellists' views. Final consensus (in Round 3) was defined as at least 80% agreement. Commentaries on the codes from all e-Delphi rounds were pooled together and analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty-one individual panellists took part in the study (there were 12 responses in Round 1, 18 in Round 2 and 16 in Round 3). Commentaries on the codes included three themes: challenges and facilitators; level of detail; and activities related to funding. Consensus was achieved for ten codes, eight of which related to activities (general and disease specific medication reviews, monitoring of high-risk drugs and medicines reconciliation) and two to patient outcomes (presence of side effects and satisfactory understanding of medication).

Conclusions

A formal consensus method revealed general practice-based pharmacists' preferences for activity coding. Findings will inform policy so that any future shaping of activity coding for general practice-based pharmacists takes account of pharmacists' actual needs and preferences.

SUBMITTER: Karampatakis GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6734337 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Capturing pharmacists' impact in general practice: an e-Delphi study to attempt to reach consensus amongst experts about what activities to record.

Karampatakis Georgios Dimitrios GD Ryan Kath K Patel Nilesh N Stretch Graham G

BMC family practice 20190909 1

<h4>Background</h4>In the UK, there is ongoing integration of pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service in primary care. Evaluation of the service involves national measures that require pharmacists to record their work, on the general practice clinical computer systems, using electronic activity codes. No national agreement, however, has been established on what activities to record. The purpose of this study was to attempt to reach consensus on what activities general pract ...[more]

PMID: 31500585

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited evidence for defining what specific method or methods should be used to clinically influence clinical decision making for forefoot neuroma. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical assessment protocol that has agreed expert consensus for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.MethodsA four-round Delphi consensus study was completed with 16 expert health professionals from either a clinical or clinical academic background, following completion of a structured literature review. Clinical experience ranged from 5 to 34 years (mean: 19.5 years). Consensus was sought on the optimal methods to achieve the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Round 1 sought individual input with an open ended question. This developed a list of recommendations. Round 2 and 3 asked the participants to accept or reject each of the recommendations in the list in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" Votes that were equal to or greater than 60% were accepted into the next round; participant's votes equal to or less then 20% were excluded. The remaining participant's votes between 20 to 60% were accepted and placed into the following round for voting. Round 4 asked the participants to rank the list of recommendations according to the strength of recommendation they would give in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" The recruitment and Delphi rounds were conducted through email.ResultsIn round 1, the 16 participants identified 68 recommendations for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. In round 2, 27 recommendations were accepted, 11 recommendations were rejected and 30 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 3, 36 recommendations were accepted, 22 recommendations were rejected and 11 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 4, 21 recommendations were selected by the participants to form the expert derived clinical assessment protocol for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. From these 21 recommendations, a set of themes were established: location of pain, non weight bearing sensation, weight bearing sensation, observations, tests and imaging.ConclusionFollowing the identification of 21 method recommendations, a core set of clinical diagnostic methods have been prepared as a clinical assessment protocol for the diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Based on expert opinion, the core set will assist clinicians in forming a clearer diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of severely ill and dying people in Germany can be administered primary palliative care (PPC) by general practitioners (GP). However, the current provision of PPC does not match the needs of the population. Although several public health strategies aim at strengthening the role of GPs in PPC provision, it remains challenging for GP teams to integrate PPC into their daily routines.AimA Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice.MethodsThe study is part of the junior research project "Primary Palliative Care in General Practice" (ALLPRAX). After having developed, tested and evaluated 26 practical measures for GP practices to improve their PPC, a Delphi consensus study among GPs took place. In 2020, 569 GPs were asked to rate the relevance and feasibility of the measures on a 4-point Likert scale via an anonymous online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as a sum percentage of 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree' responses ≥75% after two rounds. Between these rounds, measures that were not consented in the first round were adapted in light of respondents' free text comments and suggestions.ResultsThe response rate was 11.3% in round 1 (n = 64) and 53.1% in round 2 (n = 34). From the initial n = 26 measures, n = 20 measures achieved consensus and were included in the final intervention package. The consented measures pertained to four main topics: advance care planning with patients, consulting and informing patients and family caregivers, GP office organisation and continuing education. N = 6 measures did not achieve consensus, predominantly due to time and workload constraints.ConclusionThe consented measures provide valuable support to improve the provision of PPC by GPs. They can be used freely and flexibly, according to the needs of individual GP teams, and are thus suitable for implementation nationwide.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Registration N° DRKS00011821; 4 December 2017; https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ) and the German Register of Health Care Research (Registration N° VfD_ALLPRAX_16_003817; 30 March 2017).

Project description:Background:The current study was performed to develop a consensus-based core inventory of key performance indicators (KPIs) to be used in capturing the impact of pharmaceutical care in healthcare facilities that employ integrative medicine paradigm in Palestine. Methods:A panel of healthcare professionals and risk/quality assurance managers was composed employing a judgmental sampling technique. The study tool was a questionnaire. Views and opinions of the panelists on the roles of pharmacists in caring for patients admitted to or visiting healthcare facilities that employ integrative medicine were collected using 11 statements. An initial inventory of activities and services that potentially can be used as KPIs was compiled from the literature and interviews with key contact experts in the domain. Three iterative Delphi rounds were conducted among the panelists (n?=?50) to achieve formal consensus on the KPIs that should be used. The consensus-based KPIs were ordered by the scores of the panelists. Results:A total of 8 consensus-based KPIs were developed. The KPIs related to the number of problems related to medications and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that were resolved by pharmacists and CAM practitioners (p?<?0.0001), number of patients for whom reconciliations were documented (p?<?0.0001), number of patients receiving direct, comprehensive, and/or collaborative care (p?<?0.0001), and number of patients for whom pharmacists and CAM practitioners were involved in implementing a therapeutic plan (p?<?0.05) were rated significantly higher than the KPI (#8) related to the participation in multi-healthcare provider discussions/deliberations. Conclusions:Consensus-based KPIs that can be used in capturing the impact of evidence-based CAM and pharmaceutical care of patients in healthcare facilities that employ integrative medicine paradigm were developed. Future studies are still needed to investigate if implementing these KPIs might promote evidence-based CAM and pharmaceutical care in healthcare facilities that employ the integrative medicine paradigm.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacogenetics targets genetic variations that influence drug response. It is relatively a new science that has not been vastly employed in most developing countries including Syria. Therefore we aimed at evaluating the depth of knowledge in pharmacogenetics and the attitude towards it amongst Syrian pharmacists and physicians.MethodsWe carried out an internet-based questionnaire consisted of 26 questions, sent through specialized websites and private groups with a large number of pharmacists and physicians members. The survey was available online for a period of 1 month.ResultsThe total number of respondents was 154, mostly female pharmacists. Our statistical analysis showed a strong positive association between profession (in favour of pharmacists) and pharmacogenetics knowledge p = 0.049; however, no correlation with experience p = 0.811 was found. A significant difference was reported between the knowledge of pharmacists and physicians p = 0.001 concerning drugs that need pharmacogenetics testing before being prescribed. The majority of respondents had no information about applying genetic tests in Syria before prescribing medications nor did they possess the knowledge regarding drugs that show differential responses in patients according to their unique genotypes. In our study, the percentage knowledge assessment score was low in general (mean ± Standard deviation, SD) (46% ± 13.9%). The majority of the respondents agreed that pharmacists should provide counselling to patients on the subject of pharmacogenetics. Respondents' opinions varied concerning making pharmacogenetics learning a priority.ConclusionLack of pharmacogenetics knowledge was found amongst respondents in general. Our findings raise concerns about the lack of awareness amongst physicians, which may hinder the implementation of this crucial field in Syria. We suggest an emphasis on the role of education, training, and conducting genotyping research on the Syrian population.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pharmacists are uniquely placed in the community to be of assistance to disaster-affected patients. However, the roles undertaken by pharmacists in disasters are identified based on their own experiences and networks. There is currently no definition or acknowledgment of pharmacists' roles in disasters. OBJECTIVE:To acquire consensus from an expert panel of key opinion leaders within the field of disaster health on pharmacists' roles in disasters throughout the four disaster phases-prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. METHODS:A Delphi study consisting of three rounds of online surveys was utilised. Twenty-four key opinion leaders were contacted, with 15 completing all three rounds. The 15 expert panellists were presented with 46 roles identified in the literature and asked to rank their opinions on a 5-point Likert scale. This study used an international, all-hazard, and multijurisdictional approach. Consensus was benchmarked at 80% and any role which did not reach consensus was re-queried in the subsequent round. The third round provided the results of the Delphi study and sought commentary on the acceptance or rejection of the roles. RESULTS:Of the 46 roles provided to the expert panel, 43 roles were accepted as roles pharmacists are capable of undertaking in a disaster. There were five roles for the prevention phase, nine for the preparedness phase, 21 for the response phase, and eight for the recovery phase. The experts were asked to prioritise the top five roles for each of the disaster phases. The three roles which did not make consensus were deemed to be specialised roles for disaster pharmacists and not generalisable to the broader pharmacy profession. CONCLUSION:This study identifies pharmacists' roles in disasters which have been accepted by the international disaster health community. The international key opinion leaders recommended that pharmacists could be undertaking 43 roles in a disaster, however, this is dependent on individual jurisdiction considerations. Pharmacy professional associations need to advocate to policymakers for legislative support and to ensure pharmacists are equipped with the training and education required to undertake these roles within specific jurisdictions.

Dataset Information

Capturing pharmacists' impact in general practice: an e-Delphi study to attempt to reach consensus amongst experts about what activities to record.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Capturing pharmacists' impact in general practice: an e-Delphi study to attempt to reach consensus amongst experts about what activities to record.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets