Dataset Information

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Collaborative 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. METHOD:Seven 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. RESULTS:Twenty-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. CONCLUSION:Understanding 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.

SUBMITTER: Gerlach N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7487755 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study.

Gerlach Navina N Michiels-Corsten Matthias M Viniol Annika A Schleef Tanja T Junius-Walker Ulrike U Krause Olaf O Donner-Banzhoff Norbert N

BMC family practice 20200904 1

<h4>Background</h4>Collaborative 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 s ...[more]

PMID: 32887551

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists.AimThe aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation.MethodThis was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach.ResultsMany general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost-benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs.ConclusionThe perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists.

Project description:BackgroundCollaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists.MethodsThe DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool's reliability and content validity.ResultsThree hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors "Activation for collaborative professional practice," the "Integration in collaborative professional practice," and the "Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice." The tool demonstrated an adequate fit (X2/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.924).ConclusionsThe Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.

Project description:ObjectiveThe 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.DesignThis 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.SettingThirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden.SubjectsGPs and nurses working in primary care.Main outcome measuresThematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.ResultsFive 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.ConclusionGPs 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.

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:BackgroundInternationally, 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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 registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12618000286246; http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12618000286246.aspx.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/13973.

Dataset Information

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study.

Publications

Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets