Dataset Information

General practitioners’ experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards, general practice-based pharmacists: a cross-sectional survey

ABSTRACT:

Background

There 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).

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

Most 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01607-5.

SUBMITTER: Hasan Ibrahim A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759266 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners' (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.AimTo determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs' confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist.Design and settingCross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014.MethodSurvey development was informed by a previous qualitative exploration of relevant end-of-life GP competencies. Main outcome measures were GPs' assessment of the importance of and confidence in 18 attributes of end-of-life care competencies, and reasons for transferring care of terminally-ill patients to a specialist. GP characteristics associated with main outcome measures were tested using multivariate regression models.ResultsThe response rate was 31%. Ninety-nine percent of GPs considered the recognition and treatment of pain as important, 86% felt confident about it. Few GPs felt confident in cultural (16%), spiritual (38%) and legal end-of-life competencies such as responding to patients seeking assisted suicide (35%) although more than half of the respondents regarded these competencies as important. Most frequent reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist were lack of time (30%), better training of specialists (23%) and end-of-life care being incompatible with other duties (19%). In multiple regression analyses, confidence in end-of-life care was positively associated with GPs' age, practice size, home visits and palliative training.ConclusionsGPs considered non-somatic competencies (such as spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal aspects) nearly as important as pain and symptom control. Yet, few GPs felt confident in these non-somatic competencies. These findings should inform training and quality improvement efforts in this domain, in particular for younger, less experienced GPs.

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.