Community pharmacy and primary health care - Types of integration and their applicability: A narrative review

The clinical and economic evidence of the management of urinary tract infections by community pharmacists in women aged 16 to 65 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many countries are experiencing an increased demand for health care and a shortage of health professionals in rural areas, impacting an individual's ability to receive timely treatment. The management of uncomplicated urinary tract infections by community pharmacists is usual practice in some regions of the United Kingdom and Canada, and Queensland, Australia.

AIM

To systematically gather, assess, and synthesize the available peer-reviewed published literature on the management of uncomplicated UTIs by community pharmacists in women aged 16-65 years, provide an understanding of the clinical and economic evidence, while also identifying the essential components of interventions employed.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted to identify primary studies detailing interventions for the management of uncomplicated UTIs by community pharmacists. PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to February 2023. Non-primary and qualitative studies were excluded. Study details were recorded in a tailored data extraction form. The quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.

RESULTS

Ten publications were included following review of 2129 records. High self-reported cure rates between 84 and 89% and referral rates of about 7% were reported. A single study found pharmacist management was cost effective compared to general practitioner management. No randomized controlled trials were found and papers were of variable quality.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary evidence suggests pharmacist-led management of uncomplicated UTIs is safe and effective, however no firm conclusion can be provided since the methodologies reported in included studies have significant limitations.

Mapping the concept of health care integration: A lexicographic analysis of scientific literature

BACKGROUND

Systems fragmentation is a major challenge for an efficient organization, integration being a potential solution also proposed in health care field, including pharmacy as a player. However, the use of different terms and definitions in the literature hinders the comparison of different integration initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and map the terms used in scientific literature regarding integration in health care and to characterize each emerging topic.

METHODS

A lexicographic analysis of the integration of healthcare systems literature indexed in PubMed was conducted. Ten different systematic searches, four using only Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and six using text words, were conducted in March 2023. Journal scattering was analyzed following Bradford's distribution using the Leimkuhler model. An overall text corpus was created with titles and abstracts of all the records retrieved. The corpus was lemmatized, and the most used bigrams were tokenized as single strings. To perform a topic modeling, the lemmatized corpus text was analyzed using IRaMuTeQ, producing descending hierarchic classification and a correspondence analysis. The 50 words with higher chi-square statistics in each class were considered as representative of the class.

RESULTS

A total of 42,479 articles published from 1943 to 2023 in 4469 different journals were retrieved. The MeSH "Delivery of Health Care, Integrated", created in the 1996 MeSH update, was the most productive retrieving 33.7 % of the total articles but also retrieving 22.6 % of articles not retrieved in any other search. The text word "Integration" appeared in 15,357 (36.2 %) records. The lexicographic analysis resulted in 7 classes, named as: Evidence and implementation, Quantitative research, Professional education, Qualitative research, Governance and leadership, Clinical research, and Financial resources. Association between the classes and the searches or the text-words used ranged from moderate to weak demonstrating the lack of a standard pattern of use of terms in literature regarding healthcare integration.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "integration" and the MeSH "Delivery of Health Care, Integrated" are the most used to represent the concept of integration in healthcare and should be the preferred terms in the literature.

Impact of a Community Pharmacy Pharmacotherapy Follow-up (PTF) service in patients using opioid analgesic

The use of prescribed major opioid analgesics (fentanyl, tapentadol, morphine and oxycodone and combinations) for non-cancer chronic pain is fraught with risks that may generate Negative Medicine Outcomes (NMO). Among the factors associated with these risks, those related to the patient's characteristics and aberrant behavior, the treatment conditions, and the prescription health settings should be evaluated with the aim of minimizing unsafety during the health care process. The present study addresses, from a community pharmacy, the analysis of Drug Related Problems (DRP) and Negative Medicine Outcomes (NMO) in patients using these major opioid analgesics while it aims to demonstrate the role of pharmaceutical care interventions in promoting safety during the use of these molecules. A three step Pharmacotherapeutic Follow-up (PFT) protocol was designed to prevent, detect, and solve DRP and NMO associated with the use of opioid analgesics. 74.6% of the patients used opioid analgesics to treat musculoskeletal pain. Polypharmacy with benzodiazepines (61.9%); antidepressants (57.1%) and antiepileptics (30.2%) was detected in patients using these opioids. The Morisky-Green Adherence test revealed that 30.2% were nonadherent. It was observed, with statistical significance, that in all patients (63), the impact of the 14-week PFT supervised by the community pharmacist achieved an overall reduction in the prevalence of DRP and NMO. While the reduction in the number of DRPs reached 66.7%. Community pharmacies are a strategic point to promote and implement effective opioid stewardship due to both their central role in healthcare services and frequent interaction with patients.

Developing consensus on the principles and key actions for collaborative working between general practices and community pharmacies: a modified eDelphi study

OBJECTIVES

To develop consensus on the principles and key actions for collaborative working in practice between general practice, community pharmacy and patients and their carers.

DESIGN

Three-round modified eDelphi study, starting from an established conceptual model of collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists.

SETTING

Community pharmacies and general practices in England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A panel of 123 experts: 43% from a community pharmacy background; 36% from a GP background; 13% patients, carers or patient representatives and 8% from academic or commissioner backgrounds. Panellist numbers reduced by approximately 30% in rounds 2 and 3.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Consensus between expert panellists, defined as at least 75% agreement.

RESULTS

A high level of consensus (>80%) was achieved on all components of a model of collaboration composed of Fundamental Principles of Collaboration and Key Activities for Action, supported by a series of aspirational statements and suggested practical actions. The fundamental principles and key activities are appended by contextual points. The findings indicate that collaboration in practice involves team members other than just GPs and community pharmacists and recognises that patients often want to know how each professional team is involved in their care. This study also provides insights into how collaboration between general practice and community pharmacy settings appears to have shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially through opportunities for virtual collaboration and communication that can transcend the need for close geographical proximity.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based model of collaboration between general practice teams, community pharmacy teams, and patients and their carers has been developed. It is practically focused, values the patient voice and incorporates general practice and community pharmacy team members. While developed in England, the model is likely to also have applicability to other countries with similar health systems that include general practices and community pharmacies.