Dataset Information

Medication reviews in hospitalized patients: a qualitative study on perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration

ABSTRACT: Background In-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients. Methods Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners’, community pharmacists’, geriatricians’, and hospital pharmacists’ experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach. Results The need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication. Conclusion Primary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Walraven B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526422 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given both the increase of nursing home residents forecast and challenges of current interprofessional interactions, we developed and tested measures to improve collaboration and communication between nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in this setting. Our multicentre study has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FK 01GY1124). METHODS:The measures were developed iteratively in a continuous process, which is the focus of this article. In part 1 "exploration of the situation", interviews were conducted with GPs, nurses, nursing home residents and their relatives focusing on interprofessional interactions and medical care. They were analysed qualitatively. Based on these results, in part 2 "development of measures to improve collaboration", ideas for improvement were developed in nine focus groups with GPs and nurses. These ideas were revisited in a final expert workshop. We analysed the focus groups and expert workshop using mind mapping methods, and finally drew up the compilation of measures. In an exploratory pilot study "study part 3" four nursing homes chose the measures they wanted to adopt. These were tested for three months. Feasibility and acceptance of the measures were evaluated via guideline interviews with the stakeholders which were analysed by content analyses. RESULTS:Six measures were generated: meetings to establish common goals, main contact person, standardised pro re nata medication, introduction of name badges, improved availability of nurse/GP and standardised scheduling/ procedure for nursing home visits. In the pilot study, the measures were implemented in four nursing homes. GPs and nurses reviewed five measures as feasible and acceptable, only the designation of a "main contact person" was not considered as an improvement. CONCLUSIONS:Six measures to improve collaboration and communication could be compiled in a multistep qualitative process respecting the perspectives of involved stakeholders. Five of the six measures were positively assessed in an exploratory pilot study. They could easily be transferred into the daily routine of other nursing homes, as no special models have to exist in advance. Impact of the measures on patient oriented outcomes should be examined in further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) includes the ability to collaborate in an interprofessional team as a core professional activity that trainees should be able to complete on day 1 of residency (Med Sci Educ. 26:797-800, 2016). The training that medical students require in order to achieve this competency, however, is not well established (Med Sci Educ. 26:457-61, 2016), and few studies have examined non-physician healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding resident physicians' interprofessional skills. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to describe non-physicians' views on barriers to collaboration with physicians, as well as factors that contribute to good collaborative relationships. PARTICIPANTS:Nurses, social workers, case managers, dietitians, rehabilitation therapists, and pharmacists at one academic medical center, largely working in the inpatient setting. APPROACH:A qualitative study design was employed. Data were collected from individual interviews and focus groups comprising non-physician healthcare professionals. KEY RESULTS:Knowledge gaps identified as impeding interprofessional collaboration included inadequate understanding of current roles, potential roles, and processes for non-physician healthcare professionals. Specific physician behaviors that were identified as contributing to good collaborative relationships included mutual support such as backing up other team members and prioritizing multidisciplinary rounds, and communication including keeping team members informed, asking for their input, physicians explaining their rationale, and practicing joint problem-solving with non-physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Discussion of how physician trainees can best learn to collaborate as members of an interprofessional team must include non-physician perspectives. Training designed to provide medical students and residents with a better understanding of non-physician roles and to enhance mutual support and communication skills may be critical in achieving the AAMC's goals of making physicians effective members of interprofessional teams, and thus improving patient-centered care. We hope that medical educators will include these areas identified as important by non-physicians in targeted team training for their learners.

Project description:The Center for Interprofessional Training in Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, has offered courses covering interprofessional material since the winter semester 2014/15. The unusual feature of these courses is that they are co-taught by peer tutors from medicine and nursing. This study investigates the subjective experiences of these tutors during the collaborative preparation and teaching of these tutorials with the aim of identifying the effects of equal participation in the perceptions and assessments of the other professional group.Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with six randomly selected tutors. The interviews were analyzed using structuring content analysis.The results show that collaborative work led to reflection, mostly by the university student tutors, on the attitudes held. However, the co-tutors from each professional group were perceived to different degrees as being representative of those in their profession. Asked to master a shared assignment in a non-clinical context, the members of the different professional groups met on equal footing, even if the medical students had already gathered more teaching experience and thus mostly assumed a mentoring role over the course of working on and realizing the teaching units. The nursing tutors were primarily focused on their role as tutor. Both professional groups emphasized that prior to the collaboration they had an insufficient or no idea about the theoretical knowledge or practical skills of the other professional group. Overall, the project was rated as beneficial, and interprofessional education was endorsed.In the discussion, recommendations based on the insights are made for joint tutor training of both professional groups. According to these recommendations, harmonizing the teaching abilities of all tutors is essential to ensure equality during cooperation. Ideally, training programs should be attended together by medical and nursing students to emphasize their shared identity as "tutor".

Project description:BackgroundEffective interprofessional collaboration requires that team members share common perceptions and expectations of each other's roles.ObjectiveDescribe and compare residents' and nurses' perceptions and expectations of their own and each other's professional roles in the context of an Internal Medicine ward.MethodsA convenience sample of 14 residents and 14 nurses volunteers from the General Internal Medicine Division at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were interviewed to explore their perceptions and expectations of residents' and nurses' professional roles, for their own and the other profession. Interviews were analysed using thematic content analysis. The same respondents also filled a questionnaire asking their own intended actions and the expected actions from the other professional in response to 11 clinical scenarios.ResultsThree main themes emerged from the interviews: patient management, clinical reasoning and decision-making processes, and roles in the team. Nurses and residents shared general perceptions about patient management. However, there was a lack of shared perceptions and expectations regarding nurses' autonomy in patient management, nurses' participation in the decision-making process, professional interdependence, and residents' implication in teamwork. Results from the clinical scenarios showed that nurses' intended actions differed from residents' expectations mainly regarding autonomy in patient management. Correlation between residents' expectations and nurses' intended actions was 0.56 (p=0.08), while correlation between nurses' expectations and residents' intended actions was 0.80 (p<0.001).ConclusionsThere are discordant perceptions and unmet expectations among nurses and residents about each other's roles, including several aspects related to the decision-making process. Interprofessional education should foster a shared vision of each other's roles and clarify the boundaries of autonomy of each profession.

Project description:BackgroundGuideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), optimized to target doses, improves health outcomes in patients with heart failure. However, GDMT remains underused, with <25% of patients receiving target doses in clinical practice. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre in Toronto to compare a remote GDMT titration intervention with standard in-office titration. This randomized controlled trial found that remote titration increased the proportion of patients who achieved optimal GDMT doses, decreased the time to dose optimization, and reduced the number of essential clinic visits. This paper presents findings from the qualitative component of the mixed methods study, which evaluated the implementation of the remote titration intervention.ObjectiveThe objective of the qualitative component is to assess the perceptions and experiences of clinicians and patients with heart failure who participated in the remote titration intervention to identify factors that affected the implementation of the intervention.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians (n=5) and patients (n=11) who participated in the remote titration intervention. Questions probed the experiences of the participants to identify factors that can serve as barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Conventional content analysis was first used to analyze the interviews and gain direct information based on the participants' unique perspectives. Subsequently, the generated themes were delineated and mapped following a multilevel framework.ResultsPatients and clinicians indicated that the intervention was easy to use, integrated well into their routines, and removed practical barriers to titration. Key implementation facilitators from the patients' perspective included the reduction in clinic visits and daily monitoring of their condition, whereas clinicians emphasized the benefits of rapid drug titration and efficient patient management. Key implementation barriers included the resources necessary to support the intervention and lack of physician remuneration.ConclusionsThis study presents results from a real-world implementation assessment of remote titration facilitated by telemonitoring. It is among the first to provide insight into the perception of the remote titration process by clinicians and patients. Our findings indicate that the relative advantages that remote titration presents over standard care strongly appeal to both clinicians and patients. However, to ensure uptake and adherence, it is important to ensure that suitable patients are enrolled and the impact on the physicians' workload is minimized. The implementation of remote titration is now more critical than ever, as it can help provide access to care for patients during times when physical distancing is required.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04205513; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04205513.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/19705.

Dataset Information

Medication reviews in hospitalized patients: a qualitative study on perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets