Medication supply and management in rural Queensland: views of key informants in health service provision

Community pharmacists' perceptions of a hospital based virtual clinical pharmacy service: Findings from qualitative research

Background

A Virtual Clinical Pharmacy Service (VCPS) was introduced in selected rural and remote NSW hospitals in 2020 to address a gap in onsite clinical pharmacy services. Follow-up research determined hospital staff and patients at these locations perceived the service as a safe, effective and efficient system for delivering clinical pharmacy services. Community pharmacists are key stakeholders in medication safety and continuity of management in these regions, however, their insight on the VCPS had not yet been sought.

Objective

To understand perspectives of community pharmacists on the implementation of VCPS in rural and remote hospitals and impacts on medication management at transitions of care.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconference with seven community pharmacists with at least three months exposure to VCPS following service implementation. Thematic analysis of transcribed interviews was conducted influenced by Appreciative Inquiry.

Results

Participants identified that the VCPS had supported and enhanced their community pharmacy practice and acknowledged its future potential. Identified themes were interaction with VCPS, acceptability of VCPS, community pharmacy workflow, and involvement in patient care. Suggested improvements included involving community pharmacists early in the implementation of the service and establishing clear expectations and procedures.

Conclusions

The experiences of community pharmacists with VCPS were positive and there was a consensus that the introduction of the service had assisted interviewees in providing medication management to patients at transition of care. The ease of communication and efficiency of the service were recognised as key factors in the success of VCPS for community pharmacists.

A stepped wedge trial of efficacy and scalability of a virtual clinical pharmacy service (VCPS) in rural and remote NSW health facilities

Background

Medication errors are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity. Clinical pharmacy services provided in hospital can reduce medication errors and medication related harm. However, few rural or remote hospitals in Australia have a clinical pharmacy service. This study will evaluate a virtual clinical pharmacy service (VCPS) provided via telehealth to eight rural and remote hospitals in NSW, Australia.

Methods

A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial design will use routinely collected data from patients’ electronic medical records (n = 2080) to evaluate the VCPS at eight facilities. The sequence of steps is randomised, allowing for control of potential confounding temporal trends. Primary outcomes are number of medication reconciliations completed on admission and discharge. Secondary outcomes are length of stay, falls and 28 day readmissions. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) will be conducted. The CEA will answer the question of whether the VCPS is more cost-effective compared to treatment as usual; the CBA will consider the rate of return on investing in the VCPS. A patient experience measure (n = 500) and medication adherence questionnaire (n = 100 pre and post) will also be used to identify patient responses to the virtual service. Focus groups will investigate implementation from hospital staff perspectives at each site.

Analyses of routine data will comprise generalised linear mixed models. Descriptive statistical analysis will summarise patient experience responses. Differences in medication adherence will be compared using linear regression models. Thematic analysis of focus groups will identify barriers and facilitators to VCPS implementation.

Discussion

We aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of virtual pharmacy interventions for rural populations, and inform best practice for using virtual healthcare to improve access to pharmacy services. It is widely recognised that clinical pharmacists are best placed to reduce medication errors. However, pharmacy services are limited in rural and remote hospitals. This project will provide evidence about ways in which the benefits of hospital pharmacists can be maximised utilising telehealth technology. If successful, this project can provide a model for pharmacy delivery in rural and remote locations.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) -ACTRN12619001757101 Prospectively registered on 11 December 2019. Record available from: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378878&isReview=true

Documenting the evolution of the relationship between the pharmacy support workforce and pharmacists to support patient care

Since 2009 there has been a focus on the relationship between pharmacy technicians, pharmacy support workforce cadres and pharmacists in the literature. 2009-2011 saw a framework of role evolution develop, with publications from 2012 to 2015 documenting further maturity in the development of practice models for improved patient care and optimal use of personnel. The dominant narrative in the published academic literature has been made by certain high- income countries (mainly Canada, Denmark, United Kingdom and the United States of America). In these countries there are significant numbers of pharmacists available and there has been an increasing interest to utilize pharmacy support workforce cadres to allow the extension of clinical roles of pharmacists in these contexts. This is not a systematic presentation of all the literature available but rather a commentary overview supported by key papers. Key points from this literature include: (To allow the reader to clearly understand the country of origin of the themes presented, care has been taken to note the country of origin of the papers used in this commentary).

Funding issues and options for pharmacists providing sessional services to rural hospitals in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Many of Australia' s rural hospitals operate without an on-site pharmacist. In some, community pharmacists have sessional contracts to provide medication management services to inpatients. This paper discusses the funding arrangements of identified sessional employment models to raise awareness of options for other rural hospitals.

METHODS

Semistructured one-on-one interviews were conducted with rural pharmacists with experience in a sessional employment role (n =8) or who were seeking sessional arrangements (n = 4). Participants were identified via publicity and referrals. Interviews were conducted via telephone or Skype for ~40-55 min each, recorded and analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

A shortage of state funding and reliance on federal funding was reported. Pharmacists accredited to provide medication reviews claimed remuneration via these federal schemes; however, restrictive criteria limited their scope of services. Funds pooling to subsidise remuneration for the pharmacists was evident and arrangements with local community pharmacies provided business frameworks to support sessional services.

CONCLUSION

Participants were unaware of each other's models of practice, highlighting the need to share information and these findings. Several similarities existed, namely, pooling funds and use of federal medication review remuneration. Findings highlighted the need for a stable remuneration pathway and business model to enable wider implementation of sessional pharmacist models.

Cross-sector, sessional employment of pharmacists in rural hospitals in Australia and New Zealand: a qualitative study exploring pharmacists' perceptions and experiences

BACKGROUND

Many rural hospitals in Australia and New Zealand do not have an on-site pharmacist. Sessional employment of a local pharmacist offers a potential solution to address the clinical service needs of non-pharmacist rural hospitals. This study explored sessional service models involving pharmacists and factors (enablers and challenges) impacting on these models, with a view to informing future sessional employment.

METHODS

A series of semi-structured one-on-one interviews was conducted with rural pharmacists with experience, or intention to practise, in a sessional employment role in Australia and New Zealand. Participants were identified via relevant newsletters, discussion forums and referrals from contacts. Interviews were conducted during August 2012-January 2013 via telephone or Skype™, for approximately 40-55 minutes each, and recorded.

RESULTS

Seventeen pharmacists were interviewed: eight with ongoing sessional roles, five with sessional experience, and four working towards sessional employment. Most participants provided sessional hospital services on a weekly basis, mainly focusing on inpatient medication review and consultation. Recognition of the value of pharmacists' involvement and engagement with other healthcare providers facilitated establishment and continuity of sessional services. Funds pooled from various sources supplemented some pharmacists' remuneration in the absence of designated government funding. Enhanced employment opportunities, district support and flexibility in services facilitated the continuous operation of the sessional service.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential to address clinical pharmacy service needs in rural hospitals by cross-sector employment of pharmacists. The reported sessional model arrangements, factors impacting on sessional employment of pharmacists and learnings shared by the participants should assist development of similar models in other rural communities.