Integration of pharmacists into general practice clinics in Australia: the views of general practitioners and pharmacists

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.

A qualitative study exploring the challenges and enablers of pharmacists with a recent background in community pharmacy transitioning into primary care

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are an increasing part of the primary care health care team in Scotland. Recruitment to this expanding sector has largely come from community pharmacy. However, it is unknown if these pharmacists have specific needs to perform their role within the primary care team.

AIM

To explore the perceived challenges and enablers of community pharmacists transitioning into primary care pharmacist roles.

METHOD

Eight pharmacists (5 female, 3 male, median age 32) across Scotland's largest regional health board who previously practised in community pharmacy participated in a recorded, semi-structured interview via Microsoft Teams® to explore their challenges and enablers of transition into primary care. Recordings were transcribed, verified, and thematic analysis then undertaken.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: challenging transition, transferable skills, transferable training from community pharmacy, training needs for primary care role, and benefits of structured learning. Participants reported lack of opportunity to apply their clinical knowledge and for professional development in community pharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists in our study reported a range of challenges (such as examination skills, improved clinical and therapeutics knowledge) required to practice in primary care, while their regular patient contact and knowledge of community pharmacy workings enabled their transition. Previous sectors of practice should be taken into consideration when inducting pharmacists into a new role and background specific inductions may need to be implemented to support these pharmacists work autonomously at an advanced level.

Integration and impact of pharmacists in general practice internationally: A rapid review

OBJECTIVE

English general practices have been facing ongoing pressures, arising from complicated health care needs and the recent pandemic. To overcome these pressures and reduce the workload of general practitioners, there have been extensive attempts to integrate pharmacists into general practices. A number of literature reviews, often systematic, have partially explored the topic of general practice-based pharmacists (GPBPs) internationally. Our aim was to further explore the employment/integration models of GPBPs and their actual activities and impact, concepts that have not been thoroughly investigated by previous reviews.

METHODS

Two databases were searched from inception to June 2021 for studies published in the English language. Results were independently screened by two reviewers to establish eligibility for inclusion. Original research studies, or protocols where results had not been released at the time of search, that reported on services provided by pharmacists with some sort of integration into general practices were included. The studies were analysed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Searches identified 3206 studies in total, of which 75 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of participants involved and methodologies employed. Integration of pharmacists into general practices has occurred in several countries, with funds originating from multiple sources. Several employment models for GPBPs were described - for example, part-time and full-time work and/or coverage of multiple or single practices. GPBP activities, with some exceptions, were comparable between different countries, with medication reviews being the most common task globally. GPBP impact was identified through both observational and/or interventional research methods, by pursuing a large variety of measures (e.g. activity volume, contact with patients, perceptions/experiences, and patient outcomes). Independent, quantifiable outcomes from GPBP activities were all positive but were of varying statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that GPBP services can lead to positive, quantifiable outcomes, mainly in relation to medication use. This shows the usefulness of GPBP services. The findings of this review can help policy makers decide how best to implement and fund GPBP services, and how to identify and measure GPBP impact.

GPs' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practices: A mixed methods survey study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are increasingly incorporated into general practice teams globally and have been shown to positively impact patient outcomes. However, little research to date has focused on determining general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of practice-based pharmacist roles in countries yet to establish such roles.

OBJECTIVES

To explore GPs' perceptions towards integrating pharmacists into practices and determine if any significant associations were present between GPs' perceptions and their demographic characteristics.

METHODS

In June 2022, a survey was disseminated to GPs in Ireland via post (n = 500 in Munster region), Twitter, WhatsApp, and an online GP support and education network. Quantitative data were captured through multiple option and Likert-scale questions and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were captured via free-text boxes, with the open comments analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 152 valid responses were received (24.6% response to postal survey). Overall, GPs welcomed the role of practice-based pharmacists and perceived that they would increase patient safety. Most agreed with practice pharmacists providing medicine information (98%) vs. 23% agreeing with practice pharmacists prescribing independently. Most agreed they would partake in a practice pharmacist pilot (78.6%). The free-text comments described current pressures in general practice, existing relationships with pharmacists, funding and governance strategies, potential roles for pharmacists in general practice, and anticipated outcomes of such roles.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a deeper understanding of GPs' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into practices and the demographic characteristics associated with different perceptions, which may help better inform future initiatives to integrate pharmacists into practices.

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.

General practitioners' perceptions of the roles of community pharmacists and their willingness to collaborate with pharmacists in primary care

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacists (CPs) have the capacity to contribute to patient care given their expertise in medication and accessibility to residents in the community. However, multidisciplinary patient care programmes where CPs collaborate with general practitioners (GPs) in patient care is rare in Singapore despite increasing healthcare demand.

OBJECTIVES

This study explores GPs' perceptions of CPs' current roles and GPs' ideas for and attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 private GPs from August to December 2020 via an online video-chat platform. GPs were recruited from the Primacy Care Research Network (pcRn), primary care networks, and using snowballing strategies. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded thematically.

RESULTS

Current working relationships between GPs and CPs appeared amicable but limited. GPs appreciate the existing roles of CPs: dispensing drugs not stocked in their practices and clarifying prescription details. Still, GPs appeared to rarely consider collaborative working. GPs acknowledged that CPs could enhance patient care with initiatives including medication reconciliation and advising on using medical devices. It was suggested that CPs could coordinate the purchase of drugs for primary care networks to improve GPs' inventory management, but less enthusiasm was expressed for clinical collaborations with CPs. Major concerns about GP-CP clinical collaborations included direct competition with GPs' own business interests, perceived low acceptability of pharmacy-led services by patients (citing extra time and cost), threat to continuity of care and the absence of a shared patient electronic health record system. Current funding mechanisms do not enable reimbursement of clinical services provided by CPs. Adoption of telemedicine technologies and governmental financial support were identified as possible enablers of GP-CP collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs saw potential in CPs' increased involvement in patient care, but perceived multiple barriers. Strategies focusing on overcoming these barriers could enable GP-CP collaboration to enhance patient care.

Factors influencing clinical pharmacists' integration into the clinical multidisciplinary care team

Objectives: To investigate the factors influencing clinical pharmacists' integration into the clinical multidisciplinary care team, using interprofessional collaboration between clinical pharmacists and physicians as the focus. Methods: Through stratified random sampling, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among clinical pharmacists and physicians in secondary and tertiary hospitals in China from July to August 2022. The questionnaire, comprising the Physician-Pharmacist Collaborative Index (PPCI) scale to reflect the collaboration level and a combined scale to measure influencing factors, was made available in two versions for clinical pharmacists and physicians. Multiple linear regression was adopted to analyze the association between the collaboration level and influencing factors, as well as the heterogeneity of the significant factors in hospitals of different grades. Results: Valid self-reported data from 474 clinical pharmacists and 496 paired physicians were included, who were serving in 281 hospitals from 31 provinces. In terms of participant-related factors, standardized training and academic degree, respectively, exerted significant positive effects on the perceived collaboration level by clinical pharmacists and physicians. In terms of context characteristics, manager support and system construction were the main factors for improving collaboration. In terms of exchange characteristics, clinical pharmacists having good communication skills, physicians trusting others' professional competence and values, and both parties having consistent expectations had significant positive effects on collaboration. Conclusion: The study provides a baseline data set on the current level and associated factors of clinical pharmacists' collaboration with other professionals in China and other countries with a related health system, providing references for individuals, universities, hospitals, and national policymakers to facilitate the development of clinical pharmacy and multidisciplinary models and further improve the patient-centered integrated disease treatment system.

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.

Enhanced primary care after hospitalization: General practitioner, pharmacist and patient feedback from the REMAIN HOME trial

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist and general practitioner (GP) collaborative models of care are continuing to evolve in the Australian primary care setting. The REMAIN HOME study investigated whether a pharmacist integrated into 14 different primary care teams in general practice (the "practice pharmacist model") reduces readmission to hospital for patients prescribed five or more long term medicines or high risk comorbidities. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of GPs, patients, and practice pharmacists towards this model of pharmacist and GP collaboration.

METHODS

To explore the views and opinions about the model of care (pharmacist integration into general practice), participating GPs were invited to complete a survey that included the 13-item validated Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument for GPs (ATCI-GP) one month after the pharmacist had been integrated into the practice. Survey instruments were also created for patients and pharmacist participating in the intervention. These were deployed after the initial consultation and at the end of the intervention period respectively, to elicit each stakeholders' views and experiences of the service. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 48 GPs, 43/101 patients (43%) and 11/13 practice pharmacists (85%) completed the survey. The majority of GPs strongly agreed or agreed with all statements of the ATCI-GP, indicating support for the practice-integrated pharmacist model. Most patients agreed that there was a role for a pharmacist in their general practice (n = 28, 76%), and that they would like to see the pharmacist again (n = 34, 79%). Pharmacists indicated that they enjoyed the role (n = 11, 91%) and found the position professionally satisfying (n = 9, 82%). Most pharmacists agreed that co-location (inside the general practice itself, rather than in a co-located pharmacy) was beneficial (n = 8, 73%) and all pharmacists (100%) acknowledged the benefits of having access to patient medical records. Free text comments from GPs were enthusiastic overall, although some concerns about the financial viability of the model in the current setting were raised. The primary limitation of the study is the anonymous nature of the survey, meaning clustering of responses across the 14 sites could not be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

A practice pharmacist model of care in the Australian primary care setting appears to be accepted by GPs, patients and practice pharmacists and provides promising evidence that this model of care is likely to be well accepted if implemented more broadly in the Australian healthcare setting, provided that it can be appropriately remunerated.

General practitioners' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are being increasingly employed as part of general practice teams globally, and their input has been associated with several clinical and economic benefits. However, there is a paucity of research focussing on general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of pharmacist integration into practices in countries where this novel role for pharmacists is yet to become commonplace.

OBJECTIVE

To explore GPs' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into general practices and to identify the behavioural determinants of GPs integrating pharmacists into practices.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Ireland, who were sampled using a combination of purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, which then were analysed using conventional content analysis and directed content analysis employing the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Seventeen GPs were interviewed between November 2021 and February 2022. Seven TDF domains were identified as predominant in influencing GPs' perceptions of pharmacist integration into general practices. These perceptions were mostly positive, especially regarding patient outcomes, cost savings, and improving access to care. However, there were concerns about funding the role, affecting others' workloads, and pharmacists' training needs to work in practices.

CONCLUSION

This study's theory-informed insight provides a deeper understanding of GPs' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice and behaviours which can be targeted to help optimize integration. These findings should be utilized in future service development to preempt and address GPs' concerns ahead of pharmacist integration, as well as to inform the development of general practice-based pharmacist roles going forward.

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.

Development and validation of a tool to measure collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists: the professional collaborative practice tool

BACKGROUND

Collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians is becoming increasingly common. Although tools and models to explore collaborative practice between both health care professionals have been developed, very few have been validated for their use in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool for measuring collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians from the perspective of community pharmacists.

METHODS

The DeVellis method was used to develop and validate the Professional Collaborative Practice Tool. A pool of 40 items with Likert frequency scales was generated based on previous literature and expert opinion. This study was undertaken in Spain. A sample of community pharmacists providing medication reviews with follow-up and a random sample of pharmacists providing usual care were invited to participate. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the tool's reliability and content validity.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-six pharmacists were invited with an overall response rate of 84.8%. The initial 40 items selected were reduced to 14 items. Exploratory Factor Analysis provided a 3-factor solution explaining 62% of the variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed the three factors "Activation for collaborative professional practice," the "Integration in collaborative professional practice," and the "Professional acceptance in collaborative professional practice." The tool demonstrated an adequate fit (X²/df = 1.657, GFI = 0.889 and RMSEA = 0.069) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

The Professional Collaborative Practice Tool has shown good internal reliability and criterion validity. The tool could be used to measure the perceived level of collaborative practice between community pharmacists and physicians and monitor changes over time. Its applicability and transferability to other settings should be evaluated.

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.

Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of pharmacist services in primary care clinics: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate medication use is a leading cause of avoidable harm in health systems and is particularly severe in primary care settings. Evidence has shown that the integration of pharmacists into primary care clinics has favourable satisfaction and effectiveness in health outcomes. However, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacist services in these settings have not been comprehensively reviewed. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map and examine the literature available on the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of pharmacist services in primary care clinics to guide future implementation research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will be undertaken following the six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and be guided by recommendations by Levac et al. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CNKI and Wanfang) will be searched. Reference lists and related citations, and grey literature from websites will be searched manually. Available information that has been reported in Chinese or English up to 31 August 2021 will be included. Studies will be selected and screened by two reviewers independently. Findings from the included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers and supervised by a third reviewer. A content analysis of the findings will be performed using MAXQDA 2020.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required for this scoping review, as all data and information will be obtained from publicly available literature. The findings of this scoping review will be shared with healthcare managers in primary care institutions and health authorities as well as disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

'I thought it would be a very clearly defined role and actually it wasn't': a qualitative study of transition training for pharmacists moving into general practice settings in Wales

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacists are increasingly contributing to the skill mix of general practice surgeries to help alleviate pressures faced by UK doctors working in primary care. However, they need support in overcoming barriers to their integration. The purpose of this work was to evaluate a programme designed to support pharmacists' transition to working in general practice settings. We explored the learning needs of pharmacists', the barriers and enablers to their integration and provide recommendations based on our results.

INTERVENTION

A qualitative evaluation of a 1-year transition programme in Wales starting in September 2018 to support pharmacists' transition to working in general practice settings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We employed an interpretative phenomenological approach involving 10 pharmacists across Wales enrolled on the transition to general practice training programme, and their tutors. Data were collected across two sequential phases: in phase 1 telephone interviews were held with pharmacists midway through their training; in phase 2, focus groups were conducted with both pharmacists and tutors towards the end of the programme.

RESULTS

Pharmacists enter general practice settings with a variety of prior experience. The programme provided a framework that pharmacists found helpful to map their experience to but the programme needed to be flexible to individual learning needs. The tutor role was typically regarded as the most valuable component, but interaction with the wider general practice team was critical to ease the transition. Pharmacists encountered a lack of clarity about their role which impeded their integration into the workplace team.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal programme with a designated tutor can support pharmacists' transition into general practice settings. The programme's competency framework facilitated reciprocal understanding of the pharmacist's role in the team, helped to manage expectations and enhanced collaborative practice. Recommendations to facilitate pharmacist integration into general practice settings are provided.

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.

Effect of patient-led cooperative follow-up by general practitioners and community pharmacists on osteoporosis treatment persistence

AIM

Osteoporosis is a major risk factor for fractures. Poor persistence with osteoporosis medication hampers outcomes. This study assessed whether encouraging the formation of patient-led follow-up cooperatives between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists improved medication persistence.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who attended an osteoporosis patient education program were invited to participate. They were given a logbook containing questionnaires they would bring to 6-monthly visits to their GP and pharmacist. The effect of this 3-year cooperative follow-up on persistence with medication and lifestyle changes was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 121 patients (average age, 67 years; 93% female) participated. Poor cooperation between GPs and pharmacists was noted. Nevertheless, medication persistence ranged from 83% to 91% over the 6 visits. However, since patient drop-out rates were high and questionnaire return rates were low, a post-study medical chart review was performed. This confirmed that persistence was high (74%-83%) at 3 years post-enrollment, even for oral bisphosphonate-treated patients (73%-76%). However, adoption of anti-osteoporosis lifestyle changes was poor throughout the study: one- to two-thirds of the patients did not alter their diet, physical activity, or surroundings to prevent falls.

CONCLUSION

One study goal, namely, to encourage GPs and pharmacists to cooperate in patient follow-up, was not achieved. However, high medication persistence was observed. This may reflect the education program, patient empowerment, personalized attention from study personnel, and being in a study. Patient-centered approaches can thus significantly increase medication persistence in osteoporosis. Ongoing education may be needed to improve patient adoption of and persistence with lifestyle changes.

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.

Divergent and Convergent Attitudes and Views of General Practitioners and Community Pharmacists to Collaboratively Implement Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in Australia: A Nationwide Study

Setting up an interprofessional team for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) to improve the quality and safety of antimicrobial use in primary care is essential but challenging. This study aimed to investigate the convergent and divergent attitudes and views of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) about AMS implementation and their perceived challenges of collaboration to design a GP–pharmacist collaborative AMS (GPPAS) model. Nationwide surveys of GPs and CPs across Australia were conducted January-October 2019. Chi square statistics and a theoretical framework were used for comparative analyses of quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. In total, 999 participants responded to the surveys with 15.4% (n = 386) response rates for GPs and 30.7% (n = 613) for CPs. GPs and CPs were aware about AMS however their interprofessional perceptions varied to the benefits of AMS programs. CPs indicated that they would need AMS training; significantly higher than GPs (GP vs. CP; 46.4% vs. 76.5%; p < 0.0001). GPs’ use of the Therapeutic Guideline Antibiotic was much higher than CPs (83.2% vs. 45.5%; p < 0.0001). No interprofessional difference was found in the very-limited use of patient information leaflets (p < 0.1162) and point-of-care tests (p < 0.7848). While CPs were more willing (p < 0.0001) to collaborate with GPs, both groups were convergent in views that policies that support GP–CP collaboration are needed to implement GPPAS strategies. GP–pharmacist collaborative group meetings (54.9% vs. 82.5%) and antimicrobial audit (46.1% vs. 86.5%) models were inter-professionally supported to optimise antimicrobial therapy, but an attitudinal divergence was significant (p < 0.001). The challenges towards GP–CP collaboration in AMS were identified by both at personal, logistical and organisational environment level. There are opportunities for GP–CP collaboration to improve AMS in Australian primary care. However, strengthening GP–pharmacy collaborative system structure and practice agreements is a priority to improve interprofessional trust, competencies, and communications for AMS and to establish a GPPAS model in future.

Family physician perceptions of barriers and enablers to integrating a co-located clinical pharmacist in a medical clinic: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacists from The University of British Columbia Pharmacists Clinic provide comprehensive medication management services once to twice a month through the co-location model at multiple general practice clinics beginning from 2014 and consistently since 2016. For some of the clinics, this was the first experience with a co-located allied health professional. The objective of this study was to examine the perspectives of physicians who had a relatively long-standing relationship with a co-located pharmacist to identify barriers and facilitators to integrating a clinical pharmacist.

METHODS

A qualitative research methodology was used to gain the perspectives of physicians. Data were collected through convenience sampling and one-on-one semistructured interviews. In-person or telephone interviews were conducted from August 12, 2019, to September 10, 2019, and audio was recorded with the participants' consent. The recorded interviews were transcribed, and a thematic analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Eight physicians from 4 general practice clinics were interviewed. Analysis of the interviews identified 6 themes that contained barriers or enablers to the integration of a co-located pharmacist: (1) electronic medical record (EMR) use, (2) identifying patients and the referral process, (3) workload and logistics, (4) patients' willingness, (5) impact of in-person communication, and (6) shifting physicians' perspectives. The enablers included the use of an EMR to proactively identify patient referrals, a dedicated pharmacist workspace, a physician champion, and intentional scheduling of in-person physician-pharmacist case conferences. The barriers included identifying patients for referral, the lack of EMR interoperability, pharmacist availability, physician colleagues who were less committed to team-based care, and financial implications despite externally funded pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

The physician participants perceived several barriers and enablers to the integration of a pharmacist into their practice. The themes identified can be used to inform physicians and pharmacists on the integration process for team-based primary care.

Integrating pharmacists into care teams: a qualitative systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will systematically examine the qualitative literature reporting on strategies that have been used (or could be developed) by health care services to integrate pharmacists into a multidisciplinary health care team.

INTRODUCTION

Delivery models of pharmaceutical care have been developed, trialed and refined since this concept was first defined more than 30 years ago. Delivery models that integrate pharmacists within a multidisciplinary team allow pharmacists to play a pivotal role in improving health outcomes for patients and contributing to patient self-management. Systematic reviews clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of these models; however, the attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings, perceptions and experiences of these multidisciplinary teams is less clear.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The populations of interest in this review are health care providers, including hospital specialists, general practitioners, nurses, health workers, pharmacists, allied health workers, aged care workers, Indigenous health workers and health promotion workers. The phenomena of interest are attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings, perceptions and experiences of the populations of interest arising from experiencing, developing or implementing strategies that have or could support the integration of pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams.

METHODS

The databases to be searched include PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO (CINAHL), Embase, MedNar, Trove and Australian Indigenous Health Infonet. Studies published from 2011 onwards and in English will be considered for inclusion. Selected studies will be assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers, using standardized critical appraisal instruments. Where possible, qualitative research findings will be pooled. Where textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.

Understanding perceptions of involving community pharmacy within an integrated care model: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Over the past several years, there has been more emphasis on integration within health care. Community pharmacy is often under-represented within integrated care models. This study explored stakeholder perceptions and enablers of including community pharmacy within an integrated care model.

METHODS

A qualitative study was undertaken. Participants were recruited through professional networks and social media, as well as snowball recruitment from other participants. They included community pharmacists, clinicians, and decision-makers working in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected using telephone interviews completed with a semi-structured interview guide based on Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research from June to September 2018. Data were analysed inductively and deductively following the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. An additional theoretical framework (Rainbow Model of Integrated Care) was used to categorize enablers.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were interviewed including nine pharmacists, seven clinicians, and six decision-makers. Three key themes were identified: 1) Positive value of including pharmacy in integrated care models; 2) One model does not fit all; and 3) Conflict of interest. Four key enablers were identified reflecting functional and normative factors: functional - 1) remuneration, 2) technology; normative - 3) engagement, and 4) relationships. While both functional and normative factors were discussed, the latter seemed to be more important to facilitate the inclusion of community pharmacy. Many participants characterized community pharmacists' lack of skills or confidence to provide patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms previously known views about concerns with community pharmacy's conflict of interest. However, discordant perceptions of conflict of interest and negative perceptions about capabilities of community pharmacy need to be addressed for successful integration. Normative enablers, such as culture, are likely important for organizational integration and require additional inquiry.

Community pharmacist workflow: Space for Pharmacy-based Interventions and Consultation TimE study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists' roles are expanding to delivering a wider set of professional services including medication management optimisation, vaccinations and screening services. Robust research determining whether pharmacists have the capacity to offer such services in the Australian community pharmacy setting is lacking. This protocol details a mixed methods study that investigates the variation in pharmacists' daily tasks and the workspace they work in as a measure of their workload capacity for expanding pharmacy services.

METHODS

An observational time and motion study will be conducted in up to twenty community pharmacies in metropolitan and rural regions of Australia. A trained observer will follow a pharmacist and record the type, location and duration of tasks undertaken over the course of their working day. Data will be collected and analysed using the electronic Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) tool. Pharmacists' work patterns will be described as time for each task, and by proportionating multitasking and interruptions. This information will be combined with workspace data collected using floor plans, photographs and a qualitative assessment of the working environment completed by the observer. Analysis will include heat-mapped floor plans visually highlighting pharmacist movements.

DISCUSSION

Pharmacists may provide solutions to the strained health workforce and system. There is limited quantitative evidence on whether pharmacists have the time or work setting to support such needs. The use of time and motion methodology is novel to Australian community pharmacy research, and the findings will provide a better understanding of pharmacists' capacity and work environment.

Development of an education and support framework for pharmacists working in GP practice

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the educational support provided for three cohorts of pharmacists to inform an educational support framework for this new career path.

METHODS

This study evaluated training using mixed methods and measured the development of competence and confidence in the professional role as a pharmacist in GP Practice. Data were collected via pro formas before training events, and evaluation questionnaires immediately after events. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis was applied. The outcome evaluation collected data via a repeated measure of self-assessed competency and confidence via an online questionnaire at three time points. Logistic regression identified predictors of competency and confidence at the end of structured training.

KEY FINDINGS

Evaluation of training events was very positive. The theme of clinical and consultation skills was the most professionally satisfying, followed by teamwork and support. However, early work in practice was focussed on management and systems. There were significant improvements in competence and confidence over time. Independent predictors of increased competence in the role in GP Practice were having an Independent prescriber (IP) qualification or undertaking the IP course and having had additional health board training and support.

CONCLUSIONS

Formal training was well received. Early local support from health boards and GP Practices would enable pharmacists to get an earlier grasp of tasks relating to 'management and systems' so they could focus on more rewarding clinical tasks. Being an independent prescriber (or working towards this) is essential for the development of competence in this role. An educational support framework model is proposed.

Barriers and enablers to collaborative working between GPs and pharmacists: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity.

AIM

To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland.

METHOD

Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants' views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews.

RESULTS

GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified: resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned.

CONCLUSION

A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other's skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals.

Impact of integrating pharmacists into primary care teams on health systems indicators: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that pharmacists integrated into primary care can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction, but their impact on healthcare systems is unclear.

AIM

To identify the key impacts of pharmacists' integration into primary care on health system indicators, such as healthcare utilisation and costs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review of literature.

METHOD

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, the Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were examined, along with reference lists of relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published up until June 2018, which considered health system outcomes of the integration of pharmacists into primary care, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias for RCTs; the National Institute of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool was used for observational studies. Data were extracted from published reports and findings synthesised.

RESULTS

Searches identified 3058 studies, of which 28 met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were of fair quality. Pharmacists in primary care resulted in reduced use of GP appointments and reduced emergency department (ED) attendance, but increased overall primary care use. There was no impact on hospitalisations, but some evidence of savings in overall health system and medication costs.

CONCLUSION

Integrating pharmacists into primary care may reduce GP workload and ED attendance. However, further higher quality studies are needed, including research to clarify the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and the long-term impact on health system outcomes.

Factors influencing interprofessional collaboration between community pharmacists and general practitioners-A systematic review

Effective interprofessional collaboration is critical for sustaining high quality care in the context of the increasing burden on primary healthcare services. Despite this, there is limited understanding of the factors contributing to effective collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the factors that impact on interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs). Keywords and synonyms were combined and applied to four databases (EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE) to identify articles published between January 2000 to April 2017. Relevant journals and reference lists were also hand-searched. A total of 37 articles met the eligibility criteria. Factors that posed a challenge to effective interprofessional collaboration were the perceived imbalance in hierarchy and power between the professions and a lack of understanding of each other's skills and knowledge. Experience of collaboration with the other party led to greater understanding of each other's capabilities and potential role in co-delivering patient care. The physical environment was also identified as important, with co-location and other resources to facilitate clear and regular communication identified as important facilitators of interprofessional collaboration. The review findings highlight a range of approaches that may positively influence interprofessional collaboration between GPs and CPS such as co-location, co-education to understand the professional capabilities of each group, and utilising compatible technologies to facilitate communication between the two professions.

Perspectives of Non-Pharmacy Professionals in Long-Term Care Facilities on Pharmacist-Involved Medication Management in South Korea: A Qualitative Study

Despite a rapid increase in both the number of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and their residents in recent years, the concept of pharmacist-involved medication management is relatively new in South Korea. The objective of this study was to identify the perspectives of non-pharmacy professionals regarding the development of pharmacist-involved medication management in LTCFs. Employing a snowball sampling strategy, this study relied on semi-structured, one-on-one, in-depth interviews with twelve non-pharmacy professionals in LTCFs. The inductive thematic analysis and the constant comparative method were employed for the analysis. Participants revealed the need for pharmacist-involved medication management systems in LTCFs at the intrinsic and environmental levels. Through pharmacist-involved medication management, participants desired "medication review/reconciliation" and "pharmaceutical education/counseling". The barriers to be overcome included "the authorization of pharmacists' roles", "the financial stability of LTCFs", "role awareness among coworkers", and "the professional development of pharmacists". In this study, we advanced our understanding of non-pharmacy professionals' perceptions of pharmacist-involved medication management in LTCFs. The results of this study can be applied in other Asian countries where the development of pharmacist-involved medication management for the institutionalized elderly is relatively new.

General practitioner-pharmacist collaboration in Germany: an explanatory model

Background In Germany, no validated measure and model of pharmacist-physician collaboration existed. Objectives To provide evidence for the factor structure of the previously validated Frequency of Inter-professional Collaboration Instrument and the Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument in measuring attitudes toward and frequency of collaboration from the general practitioner's perspective in the context of primary care in Germany; to develop an explanatory model which illustrates factors influencing collaboration. Setting The study was conducted in the primary health care sector in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany with a cohort of general practitioners. Method The two measures were translated into German and the survey was administered to 1438 practitioners. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the structure of the instruments. Structural equation modelling was used to determine how demographic variables and attitudes influence collaborative behaviour. Main outcome measure Outcome measure comprised frequency of and attitudes toward collaboration among German general practitioners and an explanatory model of practitioner-pharmacist collaboration. Results A response rate of 35.9% was achieved. Exploratory factor analysis revealed one factor for the instrument measuring attitudes and two factors for frequency. The factors were interpreted as 'Communication and Collaboration' and 'Pharmacist medication management'. The significant demographic predictors of collaboration were age, population of the surgery's location, distance to the pharmacy, specialty. Conclusion The results provide evidence for the factor structure of both measures in measuring attitudes toward and frequency of collaboration. A model of collaboration in which behaviour and extent of collaboration are directly influenced by individual and context characteristics is supported.

Solidarity or dissonance? A systematic review of pharmacist and GP views on community pharmacy services in the UK

There has been a strong policy emphasis over the past decade on optimising patient-centred care and reducing general practitioners' (GPs') workload by extending community pharmacy services and collaboration between pharmacists and GPs. Our aim was to review current evidence of pharmacists' and GPs' views of extended community pharmacy services and pharmacists' roles in the United Kingdom (UK). A systematic review was undertaken looking at UK studies investigating pharmacists' and/or GPs' views of community pharmacy services or roles from 2005 to 2017. A range of databases were searched including EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO, Science Direct and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). In addition, reference lists of included studies were screened and grey literature was searched. Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the quality of papers was critically analysed, findings were extracted into a grid and subjected to narrative synthesis following thematic analysis. The search strategy yielded a total of 4,066 unique papers from which 60 were included. Forty-seven papers covered pharmacists' views, nine combined both pharmacists' and GPs' views and four covered GPs' views. Study designs included interviews (n = 31, 52%), questionnaire surveys (n = 17, 28%) and focus groups (n = 7, 12%). Three main themes emerged from the data: "attitudes towards services/roles", "community pharmacy organisations" and "external influences". Pharmacists and GPs perceived a number of barriers to successful implementation and integration of pharmacy services. Moreover, collaboration between pharmacists and GPs remains poor despite the introduction of extended services. Overall, extending community pharmacy services require quality-driven incentives and joint working between community pharmacists and GPs to achieve better integration within the patient's primary care pathway.

An evaluation of the role of practice pharmacists in Australia: a mixed methods study

Background The need for greater collaboration between pharmacists and general practitioners in Australia facilitated the development of the practice pharmacist role. Practice pharmacists work from within general practices to provide services to patients and health professionals to improve the quality use of medications. Objective To explore the perceptions of Australian accredited pharmacists and pharmacists already working in general practices about current roles, facilitators and barriers, and remuneration expectations of practice pharmacists. Setting This study was conducted Australia wide. Method This was a two-stage study. The first stage involved a quantitative online questionnaire of accredited pharmacists whilst the second stage involved semistructured interviews with pharmacists working in general practice. Main outcome measure Pharmacists' opinions on expected and current roles, barriers and facilitators, remuneration expectations and training requirements for practice pharmacist. Results A total of 65 accredited pharmacists completed the online survey and 20 practice pharmacists participated in interviews. The primary practice pharmacist roles identified included medication reviews, verifying the appropriateness of prescriptions, counselling and promoting adherence and providing education to other allied health professionals in the practice. The major facilitator identified was enhanced communication. Remuneration expectations and current working relationships were identified as main barriers. Conclusion The implementation of an appropriate funding model and a defined scope of role are critical to the successful implementation of the role of practice pharmacists.

General practice pharmacists in England: Integration, mediation and professional dynamics

BACKGROUND

A number of key publications in recent years have advocated a more integrated vision of UK primary care involving increased multi-professional communication and understanding. This has resulted in a marked change in the roles being undertaken by pharmacists. Community pharmacists have traditionally provided a medicine supply function and treated minor ailments in addition to delivering a suite of locally commissioned services; however these functions have not necessarily been part of a programme of care involving the other clinicians associated with the patient. An integrated model of care would see much closer working between pharmacy and general practice but also with pharmacists not only working with, but in the practice, in an enhanced patient-facing role, trained as independent prescribers. This has implications for the dynamics amongst professionals in this environment.

OBJECTIVES

This exploratory multiple case study attempts to explore these changing dynamics across ten GP surgeries throughout the South-East of England.

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with one nurse, one pharmacist and one physician from each clinic, and survey data was collected from 38 patients who had appointments with a pharmacist.

RESULTS

The data suggested that the pharmacists who had enhanced roles perceived some uncertainty about their professional role and identity, which resulted in instability and insecurity and that this uncertainty led to both professional and interprofessional tension with their primary care colleagues. The survey data revealed that n = 35 (92%) patients stated they were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with their appointment. And n = 37 (97%) were 'very comfortable' or 'comfortable' discussing their medications with the pharmacist. In addition, 36 patients (95%) reported that they strongly agreed or agreed with the clinical recommendations made by the pharmacist.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings are discussed in relation to role expansion and professional/interprofessional relations before key practical suggestions are offered.

How do pharmacists in English general practices identify their impact? An exploratory qualitative study of measurement problems

BACKGROUND

In England, there is an ongoing national pilot to expand pharmacists' presence in general practice. Evaluation of the pilot includes numerical and survey-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and requires pharmacists to electronically record their activities, possibly by using activity codes. At the time of the study (2016), no national evaluation of pharmacists' impact in this environment had been formally announced. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify problems that English pharmacists face when measuring and recording their impact in general practice.

METHODS

All pharmacists, general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers working across two West London pilot sites were invited, via e-mail, to participate in a focus group study. Appropriately trained facilitators conducted two audio-recorded, semi-structured focus groups, each lasting approximately 1 h, to explore experiences and perceptions associated with the KPIs. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and the data analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 13 pharmacists, one GP and one practice manager took part in the study. Four major themes were discerned: inappropriateness of the numerical national KPIs ("whether or not we actually have positive impact on KPIs is beyond our control"); depth and breadth of pharmacists' activity ("we see a huge plethora of different patients and go through this holistic approach - everything is looked at"); awareness of practice-based pharmacists' roles ("I think the really important [thing] is that everyone knows what pharmacists in general practice are doing"); and central evaluation versus local initiatives ("the KPIs will be measured by National Health Service England regardless of what we think" versus "what I think is more pertinent, are there some local things we're going to measure?").

CONCLUSIONS

Measures that will effectively capture pharmacists' impact in general practice should be developed, along with a set of codes reflecting the whole spectrum of pharmacists' activities. Our study also points out the significance of a transparent, robust national evaluation, including exploring the needs/expectations of practice staff and patients regarding pharmacists' presence in general practice.

Stakeholder expectations from the integration of chiropractic care into a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study

Background

Few studies have investigated patient and provider expectations of chiropractic care, particularly in multidisciplinary settings. This qualitative study explored stakeholder expectations of adding a chiropractor to the healthcare team at a rehabilitation specialty hospital.

Methods

The research methodology was an organizational case study with an inpatient facility for persons recovering from complex neurological conditions serving as the setting. Sixty stakeholders, including patients, families, hospital staff, and administrators, were interviewed or participated in focus groups in June 2015. Semi-structured questions guided the interview sessions which were digitally audiorecorded and transcribed. Data were entered into a qualitative software program to conduct content analysis using an iterative approach to identify key themes.

Results

Expectations for the chiropractic program were mostly positive with themes consistently reported across stakeholder groups. The central domain, making progress, encompassed the organizational mission to empower patients to reach hospital discharge and return to life in the community. Higher order goals, characterized as achieving whole person healing, encompassed patients’ quality of life, self-efficacy, and activities of daily living. Stakeholders expected the addition of chiropractic to help patients progress toward these goals by improving pain management and physical functioning. Pain management themes included pain intensity, medication use, and pain-related behaviors, while functional improvement themes included muscle tone, extremity function, and balance and mobility. In addition to these direct effects on clinical outcomes, stakeholders also expected indirect effects of chiropractic care on healthcare integration. This indirect effect was expected to increase patient participation in other providers’ treatments leading to improved care for the patient across the team and facility-level outcomes such as decreased length of stay.

Conclusions

Stakeholders expected the addition of chiropractic care to a rehabilitation specialty hospital to benefit patients through pain management and functional improvements leading to whole person healing. They also expected chiropractic to benefit the healthcare team by facilitating other therapies in pursuit of the hospital mission, that is, moving patients towards discharge. Understanding stakeholder expectations may allow providers to align current expectations with what may be reasonable, in an effort to achieve appropriate clinical outcomes and patient and staff satisfaction.

Design of a 15-month interprofessional workplace learning program to expand the added value of clinical pharmacists in primary care

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Clinical pharmacists who work in the general practice settings bring an improvement to patient care and outcomes. Postgraduate training for an independent clinical role does not often occur in the primary health care setting. When it does, the design of the curriculum is infrequently based on interprofessional workplace learning principles and it does not always integrate practical experience with classroom-based learning activities. This could lead to situations where clinical pharmacists are insufficiently trained to apply clinical reasoning skills and direct patient care in the general practice setting.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING

A program was designed, including competencies and learning objectives, based on results from focus group interviews with stakeholders and the literature on interprofessional workplace learning. Ten participants were selected for a pilot run of the program and were asked several times for their opinion about the program.

FINDINGS

A 15-month training program was offered to pharmacists who became clinical pharmacists with the responsibility to perform patient consultations in general practice. The program was based on interprofessional workplace learning principles and facilitated the participants' skill in connecting the evidence, the patients' perspective and their own professional perspective. The 10 participating pharmacists were satisfied with the program.

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The training program provided increased opportunities to clinical pharmacists to add value in general practice. The training program enabled pharmacists to advance their skills in direct patient care and to improve the alignment between different professionals in the primary care domain.

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative interview case study of stakeholders' experiences in a West London GP federation

Background

Increased patient demand for healthcare services coupled with a shortage of general practitioners necessitates changes in professional roles and service delivery. In 2016, NHS England began a 3-year- pilot study of pharmacists in general practice, however, this is not an entirely new initiative. There is limited, current, evidence-based, UK research to inform the pilot so studies of pre-existing services must suffice until findings from a formal national evaluation are available.

Methods

The aim of this exploratory, descriptive interview study was to explore the experiences of stakeholders in eight general practices in the Ealing GP Federation, West London, where pharmacy services have been provided for several years. Forty-seven participants, including pharmacy team members (pre-registration and clinical pharmacists, independent prescribers and pharmacy technicians), general practitioners, patients, practice managers, practice nurses and receptionists took part in semi-structured, audio-recorded qualitative interviews which were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically to extract the issues raised by participants and the practicalities of providing pharmacy services in general practice.

Results

Findings are reported under the themes of Complementarity (incorporating roles, skills, education and workloads); Integration (incorporating relationships, trust and communication) and Practicalities (incorporating location and space, access, and costs). Participants reported the need for time to develop and understand the various roles, develop communication processes and build inter-professional trust. Once these were established, however, experiences were positive and included decreased workloads, increased patient safety, improved job satisfaction, improved patient relationships, and enhanced cost savings. Areas for improvement included patients’ awareness of services; pharmacists’ training; and regular, onsite access for practice staff to the pharmacy team.

Conclusions

Recommendations are made for the development of clear role definitions, identification of training needs, dedication of time for team building, production of educational materials for practice staff members and patients, and provision of on-site, full-time pharmacy services. Future work should focus on evaluation of various models of employing pharmacy teams in general practice; integration of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians into multidisciplinary general practice teams; relationships between local community pharmacy and general practice personnel; and patients’ service and information needs. A formal national evaluation of the pilot scheme is overdue.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3056-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Stakeholder perspectives about general practice pharmacists in the Australian Capital Territory: a qualitative pilot study

Previous studies have found that integrating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice may improve patient safety, improve patient outcomes, deliver health system efficiencies and generate savings. However, the employment of pharmacists in general practice is not common in Australia. A naturalistic study was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory with three general practices, each employing a part-time pharmacist for 12 months. This study reports on stakeholder perspectives of the benefits, barriers and enablers for integrating pharmacists into general practice. Patients, practice staff and community pharmacists that had interacted with a practice pharmacist were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Patient questionnaire respondents (n=44) reported that a practice pharmacist was beneficial and wanted to see this continue. Practice pharmacists were also perceived beneficial by primary healthcare employees surveyed (n=42). Opinions were further explored by individual semi-structured interviews (n=20). The qualitative data explored five themes: perception of the practice pharmacist, collaboration with doctors, pharmacist roles, sustainability and community pharmacy aspects. Patients welcomed improved understanding about their medication, whereas general practice staff appreciated pharmaceutical advice about patients with chronic conditions. Participants discussed options to fund practice pharmacists longer term, which was identified as the main barrier to widespread roll out.

A qualitative study on pharmacists' perception on integrating pharmacists into private general practitioner's clinics in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Private general practitioners in Malaysia largely operates as solo practices - prescribing and supplying medications to patients directly from their clinics, thus posing risk of medication-related problems to consumers. A pharmacy practice reform that integrates pharmacists into primary healthcare clinics can be a potential initiative to promote quality use of medication. This model of care is a novel approach in Malaysia and research in the local context is required, especially from the perspectives of pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE

To explore pharmacists' views in integrating pharmacists into private GP clinics in Malaysia.

METHODS

A combination of purposive and snowballing sampling was used to recruit community and hospital pharmacists from urban areas in Malaysia to participate either in focus groups or semi-structured interviews. A total of 2 focus groups and 4 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using NVivo 10.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: (1) Limited potential to expand pharmacists' roles, (2) Concerns about non-pharmacists dispensing medicines in private GP clinics, (3) Lack of trust from consumers and private GPs, (4) Cost implications. Participants felt that there was a limited role for pharmacists in private GP clinics. This was because the medication supply role is currently undertaken in private GP clinics without the need of pharmacists. The perceived lack of trust from consumers and private GPs towards pharmacists arises from the belief that healthcare is the GPs' responsibility. This suggests that there is a need for increased public and GP awareness towards the capabilities of pharmacists' in medication management. Participants were concerned about an increase in cost to private GP visits if pharmacists were to be integrated. Nevertheless, some participants perceived the integration as a means to reduce medical costs through improved quality use of medicines.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the study provided a better understanding to help ascertain pharmacists' views on their readiness and acceptance in a potential new model of practice.