Development of a primary care pharmacy outcomes framework: An umbrella literature review

Provision of primary care pharmacy operated by hospital pharmacist

A primary care pharmacy (PCP) is operated by hospital pharmacists in Thailand. This study aims to explore the level of PCP provisions operated by hospital pharmacists, to identify health service components that affect PCP operation and to collect opinions from pharmacists regarding factors influencing PCP operation. A postal survey was conducted in northeastern Thailand. A questionnaire included: (1) the PCP checklist (36 items), (2) questions investigating the health service components required for PCP operation (13 items), and (3) queries to pharmacists concerning factors influencing PCP operation (16 items). Questionnaires were mailed to 262 PCP pharmacists. The PCP provision score was calculated with a max score of 36, and reaching at least 28.8 points was deemed as having 'met expectation'. Multivariate logistic regression with a backward approach was used to determine health service components which affected PCP operation. Most respondents were female (72, 60.0%), aged 36.0 years (IQR 31.0-41.0) and PCP work experience of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-10.0). Overall, the PCP provision score had met expectation (median = 29.00, Q₁-Q₃ = 26.50-32.00). Tasks that met expectation involved managing the medicine supply, a home visit with a multidisciplinary team and protecting consumer health. Improving medicine dispensary and promotion of self-care and herbal use were below expectation. PCP operation depended on doctor involvement (OR = 5.63 95% CI 1.07-29.49) and public health practitioner involvement (OR = 3.12 95% CI 1.27-7.69). The pharmacist's responsibility, i.e., a good relationship with the community, likely increased PCP provision. The PCP has been widely instituted in Northeast Thailand. Doctors and public health practitioners should get involved regularly. Further research is needed to monitor the outcomes and value of PCPs.

Identifying the important outcomes to measure for pharmacy-led, clinical services within primary care: A nominal group technique approach

BACKGROUND

The introduction of clinical pharmacy services is part of a multi-disciplinary approach to reduce pressure on primary care. Ascertaining the impact of clinical pharmacists in general practice is vital to ensure intended benefits are achieved. However, this is complicated by poor quality evidence, multiple interventions, and a lack of agreement regarding outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an outcomes framework for clinical pharmacy services delivered in Scottish general practice using a consensus methodology.

METHODS

A modified nominal group technique (NGT) was conducted using Microsoft Teams and Qualtrics. This involved a pre-NGT questionnaire, silent generation of ideas, round robin, discussions, ranking, and a final consensus exercise. A selective sampling strategy recruited experienced pharmacists from Scottish health regions. NGT ranking results were used to signify relative importance of the outcome areas. NGT discussions underwent inductive thematic analysis to explore key areas considered.

RESULT

Overall, 13 (median: 24 years of experience) pharmacists participated, representing 11 of 14 Scottish regions. In total, 21 outcome areas, derived from the literature and a pre-NGT questionnaire, were considered during the NGT ranking exercise. Consensus identified five important outcome areas: Patient Experience, Medication Related Adverse Events, Cost-Effectiveness, Medication Optimisation, and Health Related Quality of Life. Thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the outcome framework's target audience, factors influencing the interpretation of outcomes, and the feasibility of the associated outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The five key outcome areas will facilitate evidence-based decisions regarding service delivery. Future work should develop a measurement plan, involving routinely collected sources of outcomes data. The feasibility of collecting outcomes in the real-world context should be considered, identifying measures which are easy to collect within existing data infrastructures. This paper describes a replicable method to gain consensus for a national approach to data collection from a strong theoretical basis using an online methodology.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacy personnel in primary care

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare worldwide. It has altered service delivery and posed challenges to practitioners in relation to workload, well-being and support. Within primary care, changes in physicians' activities have been identified and innovative work solutions implemented. However, evidence is lacking regarding the impact of the pandemic on pharmacy personnel who work in primary care.

AIM

To explore the impact of the pandemic on the working practice (including the type of services provided) and job satisfaction of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within Scottish general practice. Due to the stressful nature of the pandemic, we hypothesise that job satisfaction will have been negatively affected.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was distributed in May-July 2021, approximately 15 months since initial lockdown measures in the UK. The questionnaire was informed by previous literature and underwent expert review and piloting. Analysis involved descriptive statistics, non-parametric statistical tests and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

180 participants responded (approximated 16.1% response rate): 134 pharmacists (74.4%) and 46 technicians (25.6%). Responses indicated greater involvement with administrative tasks and a reduction in the provision of clinical services, which was negatively perceived by pharmacists. There was an increase in remote working, although most participants continued to have a physical presence within general practices. Face-to-face interactions with patients reduced, which was negatively perceived by participants, and telephone consults were considered efficient yet less effective. Professional development activities were challenged by increased workloads and reduced support available. Although workplace stress was apparent, there was no indication of widespread job dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic has impacted pharmacists and technicians, but it is unknown if changes will be permanent, and there is a need to understand which changes should continue. Future research should explore the impact of altered service delivery, including remote working, on patient care.

Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review

Introduction

The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions.

Methods

We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test.

Results

Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied.

Conclusions

Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.