Dataset Information

Perspectives of primary care providers on multidisciplinary collaboration to prevent medication-related falls.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The causes of falls are often multifactorial. The prevention of falls benefits from a multidisciplinary approach. As people who fall are generally older and users of polypharmacy who frequently visit pharmacies, pharmacists may contribute to fall prevention.

Objectives

This study aims to explore the perceptions of primary care providers on multidisciplinary collaboration in fall prevention especially with pharmacists.

Methods

Two focus groups were held with each of the following health disciplines: physiotherapists, home care nurses, and practice nurses. A topic list was developed based on the capability opportunity motivation - behaviour (COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were collected in the Netherlands between March and June 2021.

Results

Six online focus groups were held with 17 physiotherapists, 14 home care nurses, and 15 practice nurses. Participants reported to collaborate multidisciplinary to prevent falls, but they had very limited collaboration with community pharmacists regarding fall prevention. Participants had limited knowledge on drugs that increase the risk of falls. This contributed to their low awareness of the potential role of pharmacists in fall prevention. Other reasons for poor collaboration in fall prevention were lack of agreements with pharmacists, limited coordination and communication. Participants were open to more collaboration with pharmacists and believed this could potentially improve patient outcomes.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary agreements among health care providers, including community pharmacists, about referral criteria, roles and responsibilities, communication and coordination, could stimulate further collaboration in fall prevention.

SUBMITTER: Gemmeke M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9218163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn-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.MethodsTen 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionPrimary 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the recommended guidelines on addressing diet for the management and prevention of obesity in primary care, the literature highlights that their implementation has been suboptimal. In this paper, we provide an in-depth understanding of current nutrition-related weight management practices of primary care providers (PCPs) working in relatively new multidisciplinary health care settings in Ontario. METHODS:Three types of multidisciplinary primary care settings were included (2 Family Health Teams, 3 Community Health Centres and 1 Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic). Participants (n =?20) included in this study were nurse practitioners (n =?13) and family physicians (n =?7) supporting care for adult patients (18 years or older). In-depth interviews were transcribed, coded and the content was analyzed using an integrated approach. RESULTS:Our analysis showed that most PCPs used anthropometric measures such as weight for screening patients who would benefit from nutrition counselling with a dietitian. The topic of nutrition was generally brought up either during physical examinations, when patients were diagnosed with a chronic disease, or when blood markers were out of normal range. Participants also mentioned that physical examinations are no longer occurring annually, with most PCPs offering episodic care. All participants reported utilizing dietetic referrals, noting the enablers for providing the referral, which included access to an on-site dietitian. Nonetheless, dietetic referrals were mostly used when patients had an obesity-related co-morbidity. Participants mentioned that healthy eating advice was reinforced during follow-up visits with patients only when there was enough time to do so. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) were utilized to facilitate message reinforcement by PCPs, who perceived EHRs to be helpful for viewing what was discussed in the session with the dietitian. CONCLUSIONS:PCPs mostly used objective measures to screen for patients who would benefit from nutrition counselling rather than diet assessment, which undermines the importance of dietary intake and overemphasizes weight. With physical examinations occurring less frequently, there will be additional missed opportunities for addressing nutrition-related concerns. The presence of a dietitian on site allowed for PCPs to refer patients to nutrition counselling. Having sufficient time during medical visits and EHRs seemed to facilitate message reinforcement by PCPs in follow-up visits with patients.

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is among the most common medical diagnoses among Veterans. More than 50% of Veterans diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COPD are prescribed inhaled corticosteroids despite recommendations for use restricted to patients with frequent exacerbations.ObjectiveWe explored primary care providers' experiences prescribing inhaled corticosteroids among patients with mild-to-moderate COPD as part of a quality improvement initiative.DesignWe used a sequential mixed-methods evaluation approach to understand factors influencing primary care providers' inhaled corticosteroid prescribing for patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Participants were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews and structured surveys.ParticipantsWe used a purposive sample of primary care providers from 13 primary care clinics affiliated with two urban Veteran Health Administration healthcare systems.Main measuresInterviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Qualitative findings informed a subsequent survey. Surveys were administered through REDCap and analyzed descriptively. Key qualitative and quantitative findings were compared.Key resultsParticipants reported they were unaware of current evidence and recommendations for prescribing inhaled corticosteroids; for example, 46% of providers reported they were unaware of risks of pneumonia. Providers reported they are generally unable to keep up with the current literature due to the broad scope of primary care practice. We also found primary care providers may be reluctant to change inherited prescriptions, even if they thought inhaled corticosteroid therapy might not be appropriate.ConclusionsInhaled corticosteroid prescribing in this patient population is partly due to primary care providers' lack of knowledge about the potential harms and availability of alternative therapies. Our findings suggest that efforts to expand access by increasing the number of prescribing providers a patient potentially sees could make it more difficult to de-implement harmful prescriptions. Our findings also corroborate prior findings that awareness of current evidence-based guidelines is likely an important part of medical overuse.

Project description:Collaborative practice between physicians and pharmacists has a positive effect on healthcare outcomes. Understanding the local data related to this collaboration is vital in establishing efficient collaboration. Therefore, this study was designed to assess the collaborative relationships between physicians and pharmacists working in the primary healthcare centres regarding their attitudes and experiences, preferred methods of communication, perceptions related to the role of pharmacists, areas of potential further collaboration, and perceived barriers. A cross-sectional study was conducted using two parallel pretested self-administered questionnaires on a sample of 518 randomly selected physicians and pharmacists. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used in data analysis. The overall response rate was 86.3%. Although over 98% of respondents agreed that physician-pharmacist collaboration improves patient outcomes, more than half of the physicians (52.1%) and pharmacists (55.7%) had never practised collaboratively. Both groups preferred to communicate face-to-face (76.7%) or via telephone (76.5%). Both professions showed good agreement on pharmacists' roles related to managing side effects, improving adherence, assisting in dosage adjustment, providing advice regarding drug interactions, and providing drug information to physicians. They indicated disagreements on the importance of dispensing of prescriptions and providing advice to physicians regarding modification of drug therapy. Both groups expressed overall positive perceptions of the potential for further collaboration in areas related to the clinical roles of pharmacists, which were significantly higher among those with practice experience of < 10 years and those aged < 40 years (p<0.05). The top four perceived barriers to collaborative practice were lack of time (84.1%), lack of financial compensation (76.3%), lack of face-to-face communication (68.9%), and the possible fragmentation of patient care by the involvement of multiple healthcare professionals (68.9%). The present findings provide valuable input that could be a catalyst to enhance or establish physician-pharmacist collaboration in primary healthcare settings in Kuwait.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In South Africa, diet-related non-communicable diseases (dr-NCDs) place a significant burden on individuals, households and the health system. In this article, we investigate the experiences of eight key informants within the public sector health care system (nurse, doctor and dietician), in order to reflect on their experiences treating dr-NCDs. METHODS:We interviewed eight key informants who were central to the primary care service for at least 40,000 people living in a low-income neighbourhood of Cape Town, South Africa. In previous work, we had interviewed and conducted ethnographic research focused on dr-NCDs in the same neighbourhood. We then conducted a thematic analysis of these interviews. RESULTS:The perspectives of key informants within the public sector therefore offered insights into tensions and commonalities between individual, neighbourhood and health systems perspectives. In particular, the rising prevalence of dr-NCDs alarmed providers. They identified changing diet as an important factor driving diabetes and high blood pressure in particular. Health care practitioners focused primarily on patients' individual responsibility to eat a healthy diet and adhere to treatment. A marked lack of connection between health and social services at the local level, and a shortage of dieticians, meant that doctors provided rapid, often anecdotal dietary advice. The single dietician for the district was ill-equipped to connect dr-NCDs with the upstream determinants of health. While providers often had empathy and understanding of patients' circumstances, their training and context had not equipped them to translate that understanding into a clinical context. Providers seemingly could not reconcile their empathy with their perception of dr-NCDs as a failure of prudence or responsibility by patients. Significant shortcomings within health systems and social services make reflexive practice very difficult. CONCLUSIONS:Supporting health care providers in understanding context, through approaches such as translational competency, while strengthening both health and social services, are vital given the high burden of NCDs in South Africa.