Impact and Feasibility of Implementing a Systematic Approach for Medication Therapy Management in the Community Pharmacy Setting: A Pilot Study

Implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacy: reaching consensus on stakeholders' recommendations for mechanisms of change using the nominal group technique

BACKGROUND

Since 2022, patients with five or more medicines are eligible for a medication review (MR) in a community pharmacy remunerated by the German health system. However, implementation has been slow, with few pharmacies providing MRs. Stakeholders' input is necessary to detail how implementation strategies can be executed effectively on a national level. Prior research identified "external facilitation" and "altering incentives" as crucial strategies to achieve implementation outcomes.

AIM

To gather stakeholders' recommendations for, and obtain consensus on, mechanisms of change that allow implementation strategies to work in practice.

METHOD

The consensus method used was the nominal group technique (NGT) with NGT-discussions held separately with pharmacy owners and pharmacy chambers employees. Votes were summed and the relative importance (rI) calculated, defined as (score achieved for a mechanism)/(maximum possible score) × 100. Content analysis provided context for the highest ranked mechanisms and allowed linking to implementation outcomes.

RESULTS

Four NGT-discussions were held in 2023 (n = 2 owners; n = 2 chamber employees) with a total of 17 participants. The overall highest ranked mechanisms were fit-for-purpose software (rI = 154.7) detailed process support (rI = 104.9) and an expert support line (rI = 77.7). These together with financial viability (rI = 40.0) were prioritised by both participant groups. Three mechanisms were favoured for both implementation strategies, namely software, process support and materials (rI = 34.3).

CONCLUSION

This study identified stakeholders' priorities for mechanisms of change to implement MRs in community pharmacies. Focusing efforts on the prioritised mechanisms is likely to significantly advance a national implementation plan for countries which are at an early implementation stage.

Experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies: A systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

BACKGROUND

Though medication reviews have shown positive patient outcomes, they are still not widely implemented in community pharmacies. Published reviews on their implementation often include several other pharmacy services, making them non-specific. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus solely on the experiences of different stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews will help to better understand relevant facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise, synthesise and present the available evidence on experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in community pharmacies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases for studies published in English, Spanish or German. Key search terms included: implementation, pharmac*, medication review, facilitator, barrier. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Findings were mapped directly against the constructs of the CFIR.

RESULTS

Out of 924 retrieved records 24 articles from 9 countries met the inclusion criteria. Key facilitators identified included pharmacists' openness to practice change and a high degree of patient satisfaction post medication review. Attracting patients to the service was stated as challenging due to an unawareness of the scope and potential benefit of a medication review. The dominant barrier was inadequate remuneration, as it impacted all additional resourcing and ultimately the viability of the service. Further barriers included difficult professional relationships with doctors and little mandate from health authorities. Most reports were from the employed pharmacists' perspective and concerned the inner setting, other perspectives were under-reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this systematic review illustrate different stakeholders' experiences and add to the understanding of challenges in the implementation process. Nevertheless, findings also highlight how scarce reporting of external stakeholders' views is and that filling this gap can unveil hidden barriers and facilitators.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO register (CRD 42019122836).

The high-value pharmacy enterprise framework: Advancing pharmacy practice in health systems through a consensus-based, strategic approach

Purpose

The high-value pharmacy enterprise (HVPE) framework and constituent best practice consensus statements are presented, and the methods used to develop the framework’s 8 domains are described.

Summary

A panel of pharmacy leaders used an evidence- and expert opinion–based approach to define core and aspirational elements of practice that should be established within contemporary health-system pharmacy enterprises by calendar year 2025. Eight domains of an HVPE were identified: Patient Care Services; Business Services; Ambulatory and Specialty Pharmacy Services; Inpatient Operations; Safety and Quality; Pharmacy Workforce; Information Technology, Data, and Information Management; and Leadership. Phase 1 of the project consisted of the development of draft practice statements, performance elements, and supporting evidence for each domain by panelists, followed by a phase 2 in-person meeting for review and development of consensus for statements and performance elements in each domain. During phase 3, the project cochairs and panelists finalized the domain drafts and incorporated them into a full technical report and this summary report.

Conclusion

The HVPE framework is a strategic roadmap to advance pharmacy practice by ensuring safe, effective, and patient-centered medication management and business practices throughout the health-system pharmacy enterprise. Grounded in evidence and expert recommendations, the statements and associated performance elements can be used to identify strategic priorities to improve patient outcomes and add value within health systems.

Promoting Community Pharmacy Practice for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Management: A Systematic Review and Logic Model

Purpose

This study aimed 1) to identify and analyse the professional services provided by community pharmacists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management; and 2) to develop a logic model for community pharmacy practice for COPD management.

Methods

A systematic review with a logic model was applied. English-language databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus) and a Chinese database (CNKI) were searched for articles published between January 2009 and June 2019. Studies concerning pharmacists and COPD were identified to screen for studies that focused on professional services provided at a community pharmacy level. Evidence on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes of interventions was summarized.

Results

Twenty-five articles were included in this study. Four categories of COPD-related interventions by community pharmacists were identified: 1) primary prevention; 2) early detection; 3) therapy management; and 4) long-term health management. The most common outputs examined were improvement in inhaler technique, medication adherence, and rate of smoking cessation. The clinical (improved quality of life, reduced frequency and severity of symptoms and exacerbation), humanistic (patient satisfaction), and economic (overall healthcare costs) outcomes were tested for some interventions through clinical studies. Contextual factors concerning pharmacists, healthcare providers, patients, facilities, clinic context, and socio-economic aspects were also identified.

Conclusion

Studies in the literature have proposed and examined different components of professional services provided by community pharmacists for COPD management. However, relationships among outcomes, comprehensive professional services of community pharmacists, and contextual factors have not been systematically tested. More well-designed, rigorous studies with more sensitive and specific outcomes measures need to be conducted to assess the effect of community pharmacy practice for COPD management.

Pharmacist-Initiated Pre-Emptive Pharmacogenetic Panel Testing with Clinical Decision Support in Primary Care: Record of PGx Results and Real-World Impact

Logistics and (cost-)effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-testing may be optimized when delivered through a pre-emptive panel-based approach, within a clinical decision support system (CDSS). Here, clinical recommendations are automatically deployed by the CDSS when a drug-gene interaction (DGI) is encountered. However, this requires record of PGx-panel results in the electronic medical record (EMR). Several studies indicate promising clinical utility of panel-based PGx-testing in polypharmacy and psychiatry, but is undetermined in primary care. Therefore, we aim to quantify both the feasibility and the real-world impact of this approach in primary care. Within a prospective pilot study, community pharmacists were provided the opportunity to request a panel of eight pharmacogenes to guide drug dispensing within a CDSS for 200 primary care patients. In this side-study, this cohort was cross-sectionally followed-up after a mean of 2.5-years. PGx-panel results were successfully recorded in 96% and 68% of pharmacist and general practitioner (GP) EMRs, respectively. This enabled 97% of patients to (re)use PGx-panel results for at least one, and 33% for up to four newly initiated prescriptions with possible DGIs. A total of 24.2% of these prescriptions had actionable DGIs, requiring pharmacotherapy adjustment. Healthcare utilization seemed not to vary among those who did and did not encounter a DGI. Pre-emptive panel-based PGx-testing is feasible and real-world impact is substantial in primary care.