Preston K, Weir NM, Mueller T, Newham R, Bennie M. Implementation of pharmacist-led services in primary care: A mixed-methods exploration of pharmacists' perceptions of a national educational resource package.
Pharm Pract (Granada) 2021;
19:2440. [PMID:
34621453 PMCID:
PMC8456343 DOI:
10.18549/pharmpract.2021.3.2440]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2021] [Accepted: 09/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background:
To help alleviate the global pressure on primary care, there has been an
increase in the number of clinical pharmacists within primary care.
Educational resources are necessary to support this workforce and their
development within this role. An educational resource package was developed
in Scotland to support the General Practice Clinical Pharmacists (GPCPs),
containing a hard copy Competency and Capability Framework (CCF), an online
platform (TURAS) and both clinical and educational supervisors in 2016.
Objective:
To examine the implementation of a competency-based educational resource
package through the exploration of pharmacists’ perceptions of its
adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.
Methods:
Participants were GPCPs who had been part of a national training event
between 2016 and 2018. The participants were given the opportunity to
complete an online questionnaire or a semi-structured telephone interview.
Both data collection tools were based on Proctor’s model of
implementation outcomes: adoption, acceptability, appropriateness and
feasibility. Areas covered included GPCPs’ perceptions and level of
adoption of the educational resource package developed to support them in
their role.
Results:
Of a potential 164 participants, 52 (31.7%) completed the
questionnaire and 12 (7.3%) completed the interview. GPCPs indicated
widespread adoption and were accepting of the resources; however, it was
suggested that its value was undermined, as it was not associated with a
qualification. The appropriateness and feasibility of the resources depended
on GPCPs’ individual situation (including current role, previous job
experience, time available, support received from peers and supervisors, and
perceptions of resources available).
Conclusions:
The suitability of the CCF was evidenced by participants’ adoption and
acceptance of the resource, indicating the necessity of a competence-based
framework to support the GPCPs’ role. However, its suitability was
hindered in terms of varied perceptions of appropriateness and feasibility.
Despite the limited sample size, the results indicate that the value of
these resources should be promoted across primary care; nevertheless further
facilitation is required to allow GPCPs to fully engage with the
resources.
Collapse