Dataset Information

Development of an antimicrobial stewardship implementation model involving collaboration between general practitioners and pharmacists: GPPAS study in Australian primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in primary care is a growing concern and a threat to community health. The rise of AMR can be slowed down if general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) could work as a team to implement antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs for optimal use of antimicrobial(s). However, the evidence supporting a GP pharmacist collaborative AMS implementation model (GPPAS) in primary care remains limited.

Aim

With an aim to design a GPPAS model in Australia, this paper outlines how this model will be developed.

Methods

This exploratory study undertakes a systematic review, a scoping review, nationwide surveys, and qualitative interviews to design the model. Medical Research Council (MRC) framework and Normalization Process Theory are utilized as guides. Reviews will identify the list of effective GPPAS interventions. Two AMS surveys and paired interviews of GPs and CPs across Australia will explore their convergent and divergent views about the GPPAS interventions, attitudes towards collaboration in AMS and the perceived challenges of implementing GPPAS interventions. Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS 2.0) model and factor analyses will guide the structure of GPPAS model through identifying the determinants of GPPAS uptake. The implementable GPPAS strategies will be selected based on empirical feasibility assessment by AMS stakeholders using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria.

Discussion

The GPPAS model might have potential implications to inform how to better involve GPs and CPs in AMS, and, to improve collaborative services to optimize antimicrobial use and reduce AMR in primary care.

SUBMITTER: Saha SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057431 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Background Despite increasing interest in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), little is known about the related practices and perceptions of community pharmacists. Objective To develop and validate a questionnaire to measure the current practices of, and barriers to community pharmacists' participation in AMS. Setting Community pharmacists in Tasmania, Australia. Method A questionnaire to explore AMS knowledge, current practices and perceptions of community pharmacists was developed. It was designed after rigorous literature review, expert opinion, and feedback from a group of community pharmacists. A convenience sample of 140 Tasmanian community pharmacists was used for this study. Cronbach's alpha and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used for reliability and validity. The questionnaire was hosted online, a link to which was sent by invitation e-mails, fax and post to community pharmacists in Tasmania, Australia. Main outcome measure Current AMS practices, perceived importance, barriers and facilitators of AMS. Results Eighty-five pharmacists responded to the survey yielding a response rate of 61%. EFA identified one factor solution for each of three perceptions scales and showed acceptable reliability. The Cronbach's alpha of perceived importance-understanding was 0.699, perceived importance-motivating was 0.734, perceived support from GPs was 0.890, operational barriers was 0.585, general facilitators was 0.615. Most pharmacists reported that they counselled patients on adverse effects (86%), drug interactions (94%), and allergies (96%). In contrast, less than half (43%) intervened with prescribers regarding antibiotic selection. Lack of training, lack of access to patients' records, limited interactions with general practitioners and absence of a reimbursement model were major barriers limiting community pharmacists' participation in AMS. Conclusion The questionnaire was of acceptable reliability and validity; a larger study will further contribute in its reliability and validity. Future studies utilising the questionnaire at national and international level may provide further insights into the determinants of community pharmacist's involvement in AMS.

Project description:Background:Infectious diseases consultant (IDC) pharmacists work within an IDC service to care for inpatients with complex infections. With Accreditation Canada's new Required Organizational Practice promoting the establishment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs, AMS pharmacists are being employed in acute care hospitals. There is potential for overlap in responsibilities between IDC and AMS pharmacists, but there is no literature outlining the current duties for each group in Canada. Objective:To describe the demographic characteristics and roles of IDC and AMS pharmacists in Canadian tertiary care academic hospitals. Methods:A survey of IDC and AMS pharmacists at Canadian tertiary care academic hospitals was conducted between February and April 2015. The questionnaire included questions about the pharmacist's experience, education, and training; the institution where the pharmacist was practising; the IDC or AMS team characteristics; and the pharmacist's roles in clinical, educational, administrative, and research sectors. Results:The survey response rate was 77% (68/88). The 68 respondents self-identified as IDC pharmacists (14 [21%]), AMS pharmacists (34 [50%]), or dual-role IDC and AMS pharmacists (20 [29%]). Compared with AMS pharmacists, IDC pharmacists reported more of the following unique clinical activities: directly communicating with patients, attending rounds, involving patients in decision-making, and providing patient education. The 3 groups of pharmacists described similar educational responsibilities. The AMS pharmacists performed more of the following administrative and research duties: development of antibiograms and preprinted orders, collection of antimicrobial metrics, and drug-use evaluations for antimicrobials. Dual-role IDC and AMS pharmacists were involved in fewer of the unique activities described by those who practised within a single subspecialty. Conclusions:Self-identified IDC and AMS pharmacists in Canadian tertiary care academic hospitals were performing many similar roles; however, distinct differences within the clinical, administrative, and research domains were identified among IDC pharmacists, AMS pharmacists, and those who identified as dual-role IDC and AMS pharmacists.