An exploration of Northern Ireland general practice pharmacists' views on their role in general practice: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

There is limited research examining the views of general practice pharmacists (GPPs) on their role and their impact in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPPs' views regarding this role and its potential impact within general practice in Northern Ireland (NI).

METHODS

A paper-based self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 319 general practices in NI in 2022, directed to the GPP who spent most time at the practice. A variety of closed and open questions were included in six sections. Responses to closed questions were analysed descriptively whilst open question responses were analysed using content analysis. To ascertain associations between variables (e.g. GPP prescribing status, working arrangements and aspects of collaboration with GPPs), Fisher's exact test was employed with an a priori significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

155 responses were received equating to a response rate of 48.5%. Most participants (72.3%) were female, independent prescribers (71%), and 64.5% were currently using their independent prescriber qualification. Services that were provided by most GPPs were medication reconciliation (99.4%) and medication reviews (97.4%). The most common method of communication between GPPs and general practitioners (GPs) was face-to-face (89.0%). Telephone was the most common method of communication between GPPs, community pharmacists (97.4%) and patients (98.7%). Most GPPs (> 80%) showed positive attitudes towards collaboration with GPs and those who worked in multiple practices were more likely to agree with the Attitudes Towards Collaboration Instrument for pharmacists (ATCI-P) statements compared to those who worked in a single practice (p < 0.05). Less than 40% (36.8%) of GPPs agreed that patients were aware of the role they provided. The majority of GPPs (80.6%) expressed positive views on their impact on primary care. Analysis of the free-text comments revealed the need for more GPP patient-facing activities, GPP-specific training, and promotion of the GPP role.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that GPPs had largely positive views about their role and their impact on primary care. The results may be helpful for practices and service commissioners. Further research is necessary to explore the perspectives of patients regarding the role of the GPP and to enhance patients' awareness of the GPP.

General practitioners' attitudes towards and frequency of collaboration with pharmacists in China: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Building interprofessional working relationships between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists is essential to ensure high-quality patient care. However, there is limited Chinese literature on GP-pharmacist collaboration, and few studies have explored GPs' experiences with pharmacist integration into general practices. This study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes towards and frequency of collaboration with pharmacists in China.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used an online self-administered questionnaire integrating two scales, ATCI-GP and FICI-GP, which had been translated and validated to investigate 3,248 GPs from February 15 to March 15, 2023 across Zhejiang Province, China. Descriptive analyses were used, and the factors associated with GPs' frequency of collaboration with pharmacists were explored using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2,487 GPs (76.6%) responded and consented to participate in the survey; 52.3% were male and the mean age was 35.4 years. Most GPs agreed that they shared common goals and objectives with pharmacists when caring for patients (90.0%), and pharmacists were open to working with them on patients' medication management (80.8%). However, half of the GPs did not change or seldom changed the patient's medication on the pharmacist's advice (51.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed that GPs who were older and had more years of practice were more likely to agree that pharmacists were willing to collaborate, had common goals for treatment and that they would change the patient's medication on the advice of the pharmacist. GPs who had regular communication protocols (adjusted odds ratio1 [aOR1] = 1.88, 95% CI 1.45-2.45; aOR2 = 3.33, 95% CI 2.76-4.02), participated in joint continuing education (aOR1 = 1.87, 95% CI 1.44-2.43; aOR2 = 2.27, 95% CI 1.91-2.70), provided recommendations for medication review (aOR1 = 3.01, 95% CI 2.07-4.38; aOR2 = 3.50, 95% CI 2.51-4.86), and communicated with pharmacists during resident training (aOR1 = 2.15, 95% CI 1.78-2.60; aOR2 = 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62) were associated with a more positive attitude towards and higher frequency of cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs in China displayed a positive attitude towards cooperating with pharmacists, but they did not demonstrate a similar level of practice. As environmental determinants impact interdisciplinary collaboration, healthcare managers and policy-makers need to implement measures that foster a supportive environment conducive to interdisciplinary collaboration.

GPs' and pharmacists' views of integrating pharmacists into general practices: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) have been introduced into general practice across the UK to relieve some of the pressures within primary care. However, there is little existing UK literature that has explored healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views about PBP integration and how this role has evolved.

AIM

To explore the views and experiences of GPs, PBPs, and community pharmacists (CPs) about PBPs' integration into general practice and their impact on primary healthcare delivery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative interview study in primary care in Northern Ireland.

METHOD

Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit triads (a GP, a PBP, and a CP) from across five administrative healthcare areas in Northern Ireland. Sampling of practices to recruit GPs and PBPs commenced in August 2020. These HCPs identified the CPs who had most contact with the general practices in which the recruited GPs and PBPs were working. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven triads were recruited from across the five administrative areas. Four main themes in relation to PBPs' integration into general practices were revealed: evolution of the role; PBP attributes; collaboration and communication; and impact on care. Areas for development were identified such as patient awareness of the PBP role. Many saw PBPs as a 'central hub-middleman' between general practice and community pharmacies.

CONCLUSION

Participants reported that PBPs had integrated well and perceived a positive impact on primary healthcare delivery. Further work is needed to increase patient awareness of the PBP role.

A collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: Patient and general practitioner perceptions

A collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: patient and general practitioner perceptions.

Background

Pharmacists working in general practice settings are slowly emerging in Australia, with comprehensive medication reviews forming a large part of their role in optimising pharmaceutical care. In Australia, pharmacists are entirely reliant on general practitioners (GPs) accepting and implementing their recommendations to manage drug related problems (DRPs). The next step is a model where the pharmacist takes on responsibility for implementing some of their recommendations.

Aim

To investigate patient and general practitioner perceptions of a collaborative model of care where the pharmacist has increased responsibility in assisting the general practitioner manage patients with chronic conditions.

Method

Semi-structured, phone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients and GPs respectively. Data were transcribed by a professional transcription service, collated using NVivo 12 Plus and analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis. Provisional codes were generated and clustered into categories, from which themes were identified.

Results

Eighteen interviews were conducted (12 patients, 6 GPs). Four themes were identified from the patient interview data: pharmacist attributes; acknowledgement of the impact of the pharmacist, understanding of the GP-pharmacist collaborative model; relationships with and attitudes towards medicines and health care providers. Four themes were identified from the general practitioner interview data: pharmacist attributes; relationships with pharmacists; impressions on collaboration; impressions of the pharmacist's recommendations. Patients' and GPs' perceptions of the collaborative model of care overall were positive, acknowledging the advantages of a patient-centred, interdisciplinary approach and the potential benefits to patients.

Conclusion

The GP-pharmacist collaborative model was viewed favourably by patients and GPs, with some GPs articulating the value in the pharmacist's increased responsibility as they implemented some recommendations to manage DRPs.

General practitioners' views of pharmacist services in general practice: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist services in general practice are expanding worldwide, with evidence to show pharmacists' presence in general practice has financial, workload, and clinical benefits. Yet, little is known globally about general practitioners' (GPs') views on their presence in general practice.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the qualitative research evidence on GPs' views of pharmacist services in general practice.

METHODS

Qualitative evidence synthesis; 8 electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2021 for qualitative studies that reported the views of GPs regarding pharmacist services in general practice. Data from included studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach was used to assess the confidence in individual review findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included, which captured the views of 159 GPs from 8 different countries. Four analytical themes describing the factors that should be considered in the development or optimization of pharmacist services in general practice, based on the views of GPs, were developed from the coded data and descriptive themes: (i) optimal environment for a pharmacist, (ii) the ideal pharmacist characteristics, (iii) complex stakeholder relationships, and (iv) benefits of an effective pharmacist.

CONCLUSION

Based on the synthesis of GPs' views, we have created a conceptual model of factors that should be considered by policymakers, GPs, pharmacists, and other relevant stakeholders when developing or optimizing pharmacist services in general practice going forward.

Patients' Opinions towards the Services of Pharmacists Based in General Practice

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services for patients. In Australia, pharmacists' role in general practice has been slowly expanding. However, there is a paucity of research to explore patients' opinions toward pharmacist-led services in general practice. This study aimed to assess patient awareness, perceived needs, and satisfaction with these services. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a purposeful sample of patients who visited six general practices in the Australian Capital Territory that included pharmacists in their team. The survey was informed by the literature and pre-tested. The survey was distributed to two samples: patients who had seen a pharmacist and those who had not seen a pharmacist. Of 100 responses received, 86 responses were included in the analysis: patients who had seen a pharmacist (n = 46) and patients who had not seen a pharmacist (n = 40). Almost all the patients who utilised pharmacist-led services were highly satisfied with those services. Among patients who had not seen a pharmacist, 50% were aware of the existence of general practice pharmacists. Patients who had visited the pharmacist rated higher scores for perceived needs. Patient satisfaction towards the pharmacist-led services in general practices was very high, and patients supported the expansion of these services. However, awareness of the availability of general practice pharmacist services could be improved.

General practitioners' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards, general practice-based pharmacists: a cross-sectional survey

Background

There is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists’ (PBPs’) role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners’ (GPs’) experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs’ experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).

Methods

A paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.

Results

The response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.

Conclusion

Most GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs’, community pharmacists’ and patients’ views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01607-5.

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

Background

The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia.

Methods

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists’ characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training.

Conclusion

This review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

Patients' experiences of pharmacists in general practice: an exploratory qualitative study

Background

Since 2015, pharmacists have been integrating into English general practices and more recently into primary care networks. General practice-based pharmacists provide a range of patient-facing services, such as medication reviews, management of long-term conditions and minor ailments, prescribing duties and answering queries over the telephone. Literature reports patients’ satisfaction with general practice-based pharmacists’ services, however, previous research captured only limited experiences. The aim of the current study was to pursue an extensive exploration of patients’ experiences of pharmacists in general practice.

Methods

General practice-based pharmacists, working in practices in West London, Surrey and Berkshire, handed invitation packs to patients seen during consultations. Patients that wanted to take part in the study were invited to undertake a qualitative, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interview within the practice with which each patient was registered. Interviews lasted from 15 min to more than 1 h and were audio-recorded. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically.

Results

Twenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were discerned: awareness (“I had been coming to this practice for 24 years and I didn’t know that there was a pharmacist”); accessibility (“People ring for a GP [general practitioner] appointment … it’s Monday and they [receptionist] tells you ‘We can slot you in on Friday’ … with a pharmacist on board, they can [instantly] look at you”); interactions (“I’ve always had a really good interaction with them [pharmacists] and they listen and they take on board what I’m trying to say”); and feedback (“It’s easier [to collect feedback instantly] because I could have forgotten half of what they [pharmacists] have told me in an hour or so’s time”).

Conclusions

Findings indicate that pharmacists’ integration into general practices could improve accessibility to, and the quality of, care received. The findings will assist policy development to provide general practice-based pharmacists’ services as per patients’ needs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01393-0.

Evaluation of General Practice Pharmacists: Study Protocol to Assess Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness

The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices has expanded in Australia. However, there is a paucity of research examining interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness after including a pharmacist into the general practice team in primary or community care. This is a protocol for a cross-national comparative mixed-methods study to (i) investigate interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness within the general practice team after employing pharmacists in general practices in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and (ii) to compare interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice across Australia with international sites. The first objective will be addressed through a multiphase sequential explanatory mixed-method design, using surveys and semi-structured interviews. The study will recruit general practice pharmacists, general practitioners, and other health professionals from eight general practices in the ACT. Quantitative and qualitative results will be merged during interpretation to provide complementary perspectives of interprofessional collaboration. Secondly, a quantitative descriptive design will compare findings on interprofessional collaboration (professional interactions, relationship initiation, exchange characteristics, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites from Canada and the United Kingdom. The results of the study will be used to provide recommendations on how to best implement the role of general practice pharmacists across Australia.

A profession in danger: Stakeholders' perspectives on supporting the pharmacy profession in Lebanon

Background

Lebanon boosts one of the highest pharmacists to population ratios globally (20.3/10,000). Yet, workforce analysis elicited serious concerns with the distribution, practice environments and regulation of Lebanese pharmacists. Recent workforce data shows that the profession has been majorly destabilized with hundreds of pharmacists closing their pharmacies or losing their employment. Proper planning for the future of the pharmacy profession in Lebanon necessitates a deeper understanding of the current challenges and the necessary policy and practice recommendations. The aim of this study is to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on the current pharmacist workforce challenges and the necessary measures to support the profession.

Methods

The research team carried out a series of semi-structured interviews with twenty-one key stakeholders within the pharmacy profession in Lebanon. We categorized stakeholders according to their experience as policy makers, practitioners, academicians, and media experts. The interview guide included questions about workforce trends, labor market challenges and recommendations for improvement. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results

Four major themes emerged from this study: the oversupply of pharmacists in Lebanon, the demand supply imbalance, poor regulation of the pharmacy practice, and the difficult practice environment. There was a consensus among interviewees that the oversupply of pharmacists is due to the poor workforce planning and weak regulatory framework, combined with the easy integration of foreign-trained pharmacists into the labor market. The lack of coordination between the educational and practice sectors is further widening the demand-supply gap. Interviewees further revealed that the regulatory policies on pharmacy practice were outdated and/or weakly enforced which increases the risk of unethical practices and erodes the image of pharmacists in the society. With respect to the practice environment, there is an ongoing struggle by Lebanese pharmacists to maintain profitability and exercise their full scope of practice.

Conclusion

The poor pharmacy workforce planning and regulation is significantly weakening the pharmacy profession in Lebanon. A concerted effort between the various stakeholders is necessary to enhance workforce planning, regulate supply, optimize the integration of pharmacists into work sectors of need, and improve the financial and professional wellbeing of pharmacists in Lebanon.

Funding pharmacists in general practice: A feasibility study to inform the design of future economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Funding is a significant barrier to employing general practice pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE(S)

To explore the feasibility of determining the cost-benefit of pharmacists in Australian general practice.

METHODS

Two part-time pharmacists were employed by general practices in Canberra, Australia. Diaries of the pharmacists were analysed to determine time worked and participation in income-generating activities, including Government-funded programs: Asthma Cycle of Care, Home Medicine Reviews, and Health Care Assessments. Scenarios using different practice and business models were entered into value-cost models to determine the income generated by the pharmacists relative to their salary.

RESULTS

Over 19 weeks, pharmacists A and B supported 47 and 23 Asthma Cycle of Care activities, generating income to the general practice of AU$4,700 and AU$2,300, respectively. The pharmacists spent 36.4 and 24.1 hours on activities usually conducted by general practitioners (GPs), allowing additional time for GP-patient consultations. Value-cost models determined AU$0.61 - AU$1.20 income generation by pharmacists per AU$1 salary.

CONCLUSIONS

It was feasible to determine the value-cost ratios of employing pharmacists in general practice using these methods. Future work should focus on developing a robust business model that includes health care system savings resulting from practice pharmacist interventions, determined from randomised controlled trials.

Smoking cessation and the general practice pharmacist

Introduction

Roles for pharmacists in general practice are developing in Australia. It is known that pharmacists can provide effective smoking cessation services in other settings but evidence in general practice is lacking.

Aim

To determine whether a pharmacist can provide effective smoking cessation services within general practice.

Method

Data from smoking cessation consultations were obtained for 66 consecutive patients seen by one practice pharmacist. The pharmacist tailored interventions to the individual. Medication was offered in collaboration with community pharmacists and general practitioners. Quit coaching, based on motivational interviewing, was conducted. Smoking status was ascertained at least 6 months after the intended quit date and verified by a carbon monoxide breath test where possible.

Results

The patients’ median age was 43 years (range 19–74 years); 42 were females (64%). At baseline, the median (i) number of pack years smoked was 20 (range: 1–75); (ii) Fagerstrom Test of dependence score was 6 (1–10); and (iii) number of previous quit attempts was 3 (0–10). Follow-up after at least 6 months determined a self-reported point prevalence abstinence rate of 30% (20/66). Of all patients who reported to be abstinent, 65% (13/20) were tested for carbon monoxide breath levels and were all below 7 ppm. The biochemically verified smoking abstinence rate was therefore 20% overall (13/66). Successful quit attempts were associated with varenicline recommendation (69% v 25%), increased median number of practice pharmacist consultations (4 v 2 per patient) and mental health diagnosis (85% v 51%).

Conclusion

Our observed abstinence rate was comparable or better than those obtained by practice nurses, community pharmacists and outpatient pharmacists, indicating the general practice pharmacist provided an effective smoking cessation intervention. A larger randomised trial is warranted.

The Role of Pharmacists in General Practice in Asthma Management: A Pilot Study

Background: Asthma is principally managed in general practice. Appropriate prescribing and medication use are essential, so general practice pharmacists appear suitable to conduct asthma management consultations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the asthma management role of a pharmacist in general practice. Methods: Analysis of an activity diary and stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify interventions in asthma management; determine whether asthma control changed following pharmacist input; and determine acceptability of asthma management review by a pharmacist in one general practice in Canberra, Australia. Results: Over 13 months, the pharmacist saw 136 individual patients. The most common activities were asthma control assessment; recommendations to adjust medication or device; counselling on correct device use; asthma action plan development and trigger avoidance. For patients with multiple consultations, the mean Asthma Control Test score improved from the initial to last visit (14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 19.3 ± 4.7, n = 23, p < 0.0001). Eight of the 19 (42%) patients moved from having poor to well-controlled asthma. Case studies and qualitative data indicated probable hospital admission avoidance and stakeholder acceptability of asthma management by a practice pharmacist. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated it is feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial to have a general practice pharmacist involved in asthma management. Fuller evaluation is warranted.