Dataset Information

The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

ABSTRACT: Background General practice in the UK is experiencing a crisis. Greater multidisciplinary working is a potential solution. The new general practice contract in Scotland encourages this and includes a new pharmacotherapy service to be delivered by General Practice Clinical Pharmacists (GPCPs). Consensus is lacking for the standards of practice for delivery of pharmacotherapy medication reviews (which are polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews) as part of this service. Aim To identify and validate standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease medication (pharmacotherapy level 3) reviews conducted by GPCPs. Method A two-phased mixed-methods consensus methodology was used. Phase 1: An expert group of GPCPs (n = 4) and clinical pharmacist managers (n = 2) responsible for delivering the pharmacotherapy service used a Modified Nominal Group Technique to generate potential standards. Phase 2: Two-round Delphi survey involving GPCPs with ≥ 1 year of experience of working in general practice (n = 159). Results The expert group identified 44 potential standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease reviews. Practicing GPCPs indicated during the Delphi phase that the 44 standards were applicable to practice. The standards of practice covered seven main categories: skills, environment, qualifications, qualities and behaviours, knowledge, process and experience. Conclusion Practicing GPCPs indicated that the standards identified by the expert group are acceptable and valid for current practice and the delivery of polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews. The application of these standards to practice may help GPCPs and general practices to ensure equitable delivery of patient care.

SUBMITTER: Earle-Payne K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8941365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia.MethodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists' characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training.ConclusionThis review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

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:BackgroundPolypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration.MethodsA systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsIn total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness.ConclusionsPharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration.Trial registrationCRD42019139679.

Project description:BackgroundIn the UK, there is ongoing integration of pharmacists into general practice as a new healthcare service in primary care. Evaluation of the service involves national measures that require pharmacists to record their work, on the general practice clinical computer systems, using electronic activity codes. No national agreement, however, has been established on what activities to record. The purpose of this study was to attempt to reach consensus on what activities general practice-based pharmacists should record.MethodsThe e-Delphi method was chosen as it is an excellent technique for achieving consensus. The study began with an initial stage in which screening of a general practice clinical computer system and discussion groups with pharmacists from two 'pharmacists in general practice' sites identified 81 codes potentially relevant to general practice-based pharmacists' work. Twenty-nine experts (pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from the two sites along with experts recruited through national committees) were then invited by e-mail to participate as a panel in three e-Delphi questionnaire rounds. In each round, panellists were asked to grade or rank codes and justify their choices. In every round, panellists were provided with anonymised feedback from the previous round which included their individual choices along with their co-panellists' views. Final consensus (in Round 3) was defined as at least 80% agreement. Commentaries on the codes from all e-Delphi rounds were pooled together and analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-one individual panellists took part in the study (there were 12 responses in Round 1, 18 in Round 2 and 16 in Round 3). Commentaries on the codes included three themes: challenges and facilitators; level of detail; and activities related to funding. Consensus was achieved for ten codes, eight of which related to activities (general and disease specific medication reviews, monitoring of high-risk drugs and medicines reconciliation) and two to patient outcomes (presence of side effects and satisfactory understanding of medication).ConclusionsA formal consensus method revealed general practice-based pharmacists' preferences for activity coding. Findings will inform policy so that any future shaping of activity coding for general practice-based pharmacists takes account of pharmacists' actual needs and preferences.

Project description:ObjectiveTo (1) characterize community pharmacists' and community pharmacy residents' decision making and unmet information needs when conducting comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) as part of medication therapy management and (2) explore any differences between community pharmacists and community pharmacy residents in CMR decision making and unmet information needs.DesignThirty-to 60-minute semistructured interviews framed using a clinical decision-making model (CDMM) were conducted with community pharmacists and residents.Setting and participantsParticipants were recruited from practice-based research networks and researchers' professional networks. Eligible participants had completed or supported the completion of at least 2 CMRs in the last 30 days.Outcome measuresTwo researchers independently coded transcripts using a combination of inductive and deductive methods to identify themes pertaining to community pharmacists' and residents' decision making and unmet information needs in the provision of CMRs. Discrepancies among researchers' initial coding decisions were resolved through discussion.ResultsSixteen participants (8 pharmacists and 8 residents) were interviewed. Themes were mapped to 5 CDMM steps. Participants primarily used subjective information during "case familiarization"; objective information was secondary. Information used for "generating initial hypotheses" varied by medication therapy problem (MTP) type. During "case assessment," if information was not readily available, participants sought information from patients. Thus, patients' levels of self-management and health literacy influenced participants' ability to identify and resolve MTPs, as described under "identifying final hypotheses." Finally, participants described "decision-making barriers," including communication with prescribers to resolve MTPs. Although pharmacist and resident participants varied in the types of MTPs identified, both groups cited the use and need of similar information.ConclusionCommunity pharmacists and residents often rely primarily on patient-provided information for decision making during CMRs because of unmet information needs, specifically, objective information. Moreover, confidence in MTP identification and resolution is reduced by communication challenges with prescribers and limitations in patients' ability to convey accurate and necessary information.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2015, pharmacists have been integrating into English general practices and more recently into primary care networks. General practice-based pharmacists provide a range of patient-facing services, such as medication reviews, management of long-term conditions and minor ailments, prescribing duties and answering queries over the telephone. Literature reports patients' satisfaction with general practice-based pharmacists' services, however, previous research captured only limited experiences. The aim of the current study was to pursue an extensive exploration of patients' experiences of pharmacists in general practice.MethodsGeneral practice-based pharmacists, working in practices in West London, Surrey and Berkshire, handed invitation packs to patients seen during consultations. Patients that wanted to take part in the study were invited to undertake a qualitative, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interview within the practice with which each patient was registered. Interviews lasted from 15 min to more than 1 h and were audio-recorded. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were discerned: awareness ("I had been coming to this practice for 24 years and I didn't know that there was a pharmacist"); accessibility ("People ring for a GP [general practitioner] appointment … it's Monday and they [receptionist] tells you 'We can slot you in on Friday' … with a pharmacist on board, they can [instantly] look at you"); interactions ("I've always had a really good interaction with them [pharmacists] and they listen and they take on board what I'm trying to say"); and feedback ("It's easier [to collect feedback instantly] because I could have forgotten half of what they [pharmacists] have told me in an hour or so's time").ConclusionsFindings indicate that pharmacists' integration into general practices could improve accessibility to, and the quality of, care received. The findings will assist policy development to provide general practice-based pharmacists' services as per patients' needs.

Project description:Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings. Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679 (28/08/19).

Dataset Information

The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets