Community pharmacists' perceptions on providing fall prevention services: a mixed-methods study

Stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of the pharmacist's role in deprescribing in ambulatory care: A qualitative meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is an effective strategy to manage polypharmacy and improve patient outcomes. The notion of a potential role for pharmacists in a multidisciplinary team approach to deprescribing has been identified in quantitative and qualitative literature. However, stakeholders' perceptions of this role, and factors that may impede or facilitate the pharmacist's involvement have not been elucidated. The application in ambulatory care also requires clarification. Understanding stakeholders' views is essential to optimise involvement of the pharmacist in deprescribing and improve practice.

OBJECTIVES

First, to synthesize the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders (primary care providers, pharmacists, patients, and carers) regarding the role and involvement of the pharmacist in deprescribing in ambulatory care settings. Second, to identify barriers and strategies to enhancing pharmacist involvement in deprescribing.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and Scopus from database inception to April 2023 for qualitative studies in English exploring the pharmacist's role in deprescribing. Data were extracted for iterative and inductive development of themes. A meta-synthesis facilitated the identification of overarching themes. Qualitative secondary analysis enabled identification of barriers and facilitators to the pharmacist's involvement in deprescribing.

RESULTS

From 285 articles identified, 9 studies were included which explored the views of general practitioners, specialist physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, patients, carers, and general practice and clinic staff as stakeholders in deprescribing in ambulatory care. The meta-synthesis identified 4 over-arching themes: (1) therapeutic impetus and the status quo mentality, (2) role and responsibility, (3) multidisciplinary care, and (4) conflicting interests in pharmacy practice. Strategies to enhance pharmacists' involvement in deprescribing emerged from the data, and the pharmacist's role was strongly encouraged by stakeholders despite logistical and perceptual barriers identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of the strategies to enhance the pharmacist's involvement in deprescribing identified in this review is encouraged to optimise patient-centred care and improve practice.

Application of behavioural theories, models, and frameworks in pharmacy practice research based on published evidence: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy practice research often focuses on the design, implementation and evaluation of pharmacy services and interventions. The use of behavioural theory in intervention research allows understanding of interventions' mechanisms of action and are more likely to result in effective and sustained interventions.

AIM

To collate, summarise and categorise the reported behavioural frameworks, models and theories used in pharmacy practice research.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and EBSCO (CINAHL PLUS, British Education index, ERIC) were systematically searched to capture all pharmacy practice articles that had reported the use of behavioural frameworks, theories, or models since inception of the database. Results were filtered to include articles published in English in pharmacy practice journals. Full-text screening and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the data was adopted. Studies were reviewed for alignment to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework to identify in which phase(s) of the research that the theory/model/framework had been employed.

RESULTS

Fifty articles met the inclusion criteria; a trend indicating an increasing frequency of behavioural theory/frameworks/models within pharmacy practice research was identified; the most frequently reported were Theory of Planned Behaviour and Theoretical Domains Framework. Few studies provided explicit and comprehensive justification for adopting a specific theory/model/framework and description of how it underpinned the research was lacking. The majority were investigations exploring determinants of behaviours, or facilitators and barriers to implementing or delivering a wide range of pharmacy services and initiatives within a variety of clinical settings (aligned to Phase 1 UK MRC framework).

CONCLUSION

This review serves as a useful resource for future researchers to inform their investigations. Greater emphasis to adopt a systematic approach in the reporting of the use of behavioural theories/models/frameworks will benefit pharmacy practice research and will support researchers in utilizing behavioural theories/models/framework in aspects of pharmacy practice research beyond intervention development.

Establishing a community pharmacy-based fall prevention service - An implementation study

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacists are in the position to contribute to fall prevention, but this is not yet common practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a community pharmacy-based fall prevention service.

METHODS

A fall prevention service, consisting of a fall risk screening and assessment including a medication review, was implemented in pharmacies during three months. A preparative online training was provided to the pharmacy team to enhance adoption of the service. Included patients were aged ≥70 years, using ≥5 drugs of which ≥1 fall risk-increasing drug. The implementation process was quantitively assessed by registering medication adaptations, recommendations, and referrals. Changes in patient scores on the Short Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) and a fall prevention knowledge test were documented at one month follow-up. Implementation was qualitatively evaluated by conducting semi-structured interviews with pharmacists before and after the project, based on the consolidated framework of implementation research.

RESULTS

The service was implemented in nine pharmacies and 91 consultations were performed. Medication was adapted of 32 patients. Patients' short FES-I scores were significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.047) and patients' knowledge test scores did not differ (p = 0.86). Pharmacists experienced the following barriers: lack of time, absence of staff, and limited multidisciplinary collaboration. Facilitators were training, motivated staff, patient engagement, and project scheduling.

CONCLUSION

The service resulted in a substantial number of medication adaptations and lifestyle recommendations, but many barriers were identified that hamper the sustained implementation of the service.

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

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.

Objective(s)

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.

•

Fall prevention needs to receive more attention from primary care providers.

•

Primary care providers have low awareness of the potential role of pharmacists in fall prevention.

•

Primary care providers are positive about collaborating with community pharmacists to prevent falls.

•

Primary care providers need enhanced communication and coordination, clarification of roles, and agreements.

•

Primary care providers expect community pharmacists to focus on deprescribing of fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs).

Assessment of a new strategy for catalyzing deprescribing in community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Although community pharmacists have been actively engaged in patient care, their role in deprescribing is still restricted.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new educational approach designed to catalyze deprescribing in community pharmacies.

METHODS

In this 4-month, randomized, controlled trial, 108 community pharmacies in Egypt were randomly and equally distributed to either the active or the control groups. Participants from the active group pharmacies received 31 deprescribing-related clinical case scenarios, designed according to the available deprescribing guideline and clinical experiences of an expert panel members, and delivered through WhatsApp. Then participants from both groups reported the incidence of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs), the frequency of deprescribing opportunities, and related pharmacist interventions.

RESULTS

Pharmacists from the active group reported a considerably higher incidence of PIMs (20.87%) than that reported by pharmacists from the control group (5.03%). In addition, they made 1326 deprescribing-related interventions, of which 1022 (77.07%) were accepted and 641 (48.34%) were significant interventions. The proportions of cessation of drug therapy, reducing the dose, and persuasion of patients to accept deprescribing pharmacist interventions in the active group were 37.85%, 22.09%, and 10.63%, respectively. In contrast, 150 of 268 deprescribing-related interventions (55.97%) in the active group were accepted. The clinical value and type of deprescribing decision were statistically significant determinants for the acceptance of deprescribing decisions. The mean time needed to persuade the patient about deprescribing and the cost saved per patient across the active and the control groups were 5.09 ± 3.54 minutes versus 10.03 ± 6.19 minutes and 17.88 ± 9.60 U.S. dollars versus 4.49 ± 2.44 U.S. dollars, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The intervention proposed improved the frequency and clinical value of deprescribing decisions.