Dataset Information

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of pharmacist provided medicines optimisation services in care homes for older people to inform the development of a generic training or accreditation process.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop a training programme to enable pharmacists with prescribing rights to assume responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes, a systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify reported approaches to training pharmacists and use this literature to identify potential knowledge requirements.

Methods

A PROSPERO-registered systematic review was performed using key search terms for care homes, pharmacist, education, training and pharmaceutical care. Papers reporting primary research focussed on care of the older person within the care home setting were included. No restrictions were placed on methodology. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and papers. Agreement on inclusion was reached through consensus. Data on titles, training and activities undertaken were extracted and knowledge requirements identified. Findings were synthesised and reported narratively.

Key findings

Fifty-nine papers were included, most of which were uncontrolled service evaluations. Four papers reported an accreditation process for the pharmacist. Thirteen papers reported providing tools or specific training on a single topic to pharmacists. The main clinical and therapeutic areas of activity (requiring codified knowledge) were dementia, pain, antipsychotic and cardiovascular medication. Provision of pharmaceutical care, effective multidisciplinary working and care home staff training represented the main areas of practical knowledge.

Conclusions

Information regarding training and accreditation processes for care home pharmacists is limited. This study provides insight into potential codified and practical knowledge requirements for pharmacists assuming responsibility for the provision of pharmaceutical care within care homes. Further work involving stakeholders is required to identify the cultural knowledge requirements and to develop a training and accreditation process.

SUBMITTER: Wright DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7317947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundNurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.InterventionThe Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.ObjectivesWe investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.Setting and participantsIn three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.MethodsThis mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.ResultsWe recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.ImplicationsADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.RegistrationNLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundMedicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation.MethodIntervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework.ResultsPCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention.ConclusionsThe intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established.Trial registrationThe definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number ISRCTN 17847169 ).

Project description:Background: State laws about pharmacists providing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines vary considerably, limiting many pharmacists' ability to provide this important cancer prevention service. We characterized physician and parent support for pharmacist-provided HPV vaccination for adolescents who are past due for vaccination.Methods: In 2014 to 2015, we conducted two national U.S. surveys of 776 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 1,504 parents of adolescents. Respondents indicated the extent to which they supported pharmacist-provided HPV vaccination for 13- to 17-year-olds who are past due. Respondents could endorse the provision unconditionally, or only if certain conditions were met, such as pharmacists receiving proper vaccination training. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of support.Results: Most physicians (79%) and parents (81%) endorsed pharmacist-provided HPV vaccination if pharmacists had received proper vaccination training, reported vaccine doses to adolescents' PCP, and referred adolescents to PCPs for other health services. Family medicine physicians were more likely than pediatricians to support trained pharmacists providing HPV vaccination [OR = 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-2.22]. Support was also higher among physicians who practiced in Western states (OR = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40). Parents' odds of endorsing trained pharmacists provision of HPV vaccine increased with higher overall satisfaction with their pharmacy's services (OR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19), belief in pharmacists' competence in vaccination practices (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.18-1.70), and overall vaccine confidence (OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.48).Conclusions: To increase support for HPV vaccination services, pharmacists should raise awareness about their immunization training and standardize vaccination protocols that ensure coordination with primary care.Impact: Stakeholders' feedback and buy-in is important to help guide expansion of HPV vaccination in pharmacies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(8); 970-8. ©2018 AACR.