Pharmacists' perspectives on the value of reason for use information

Community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Prescribing cascades can lead to unnecessary medication use, healthcare costs, and patient harm. Pharmacists oversee prescriptions from multiple prescribers and are well positioned to identify such cascades, making pharmacists key stakeholders to address them.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades and to assess behavioural determinants that may be targeted in future strategies to minimise inappropriate prescribing cascades.

METHODS

An online survey was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and emailed to all registered community pharmacists in Ireland (n = 3775) in November 2021. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Free-text sections were given to capture reasons for non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and suggestions to aid prescribing cascade identification and management; this text underwent content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 220 respondents, 51% were aware of the term 'prescribing cascade' before the survey, whilst 69% had identified a potentially inappropriate prescribing cascade in practice. Over one third were either slightly confident (26.4%) or not confident at all (10%) in their ability to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades in patients' prescriptions before the survey, whilst 55.2% were concerned that patients were receiving prescribing cascades they had not identified. Most respondents wanted further information/training to help prescribing cascade identification (88.3%) and management (86.1%). Four predominant TDF domains identified were common to both i) influencing non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and ii) in the suggestions to help identify and manage prescribing cascades: 'Environmental Context and Resources', 'Social/Professional Role and Identity', 'Social Influences' and 'Memory, Attention and Decision Processes'.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need to provide additional resources to help community pharmacists identify and manage prescribing cascades. These findings will support the development of theory-informed behaviour change strategies to aid the minimisation of inappropriate prescribing cascades and decrease the risk of medication-related harm for patients.

Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study

BACKGROUND

Standardisation, a widely accepted concept for risk management, entails designing and implementing task-specific operating procedures. In community pharmacies, Standardised Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a mandatory requirement and are recognised as essential for upholding safety and quality.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' (CPs) compliance with SOPs when checking prescriptions, and the reasons for variations between standardised protocols and practice.

METHOD

Eight sets of SOPs underwent hierarchical task analysis (HTA) to generate a normative description of clinical checking execution as per protocols. Subsequently, twelve CPs were engaged in a simulated clinical checking exercise, verbalising their thoughts while checking virtual prescriptions. Transcribed data underwent content analysis, aligned with a descriptive model to uncover engagement patterns, and disparities between SOPs and CPs' practices. Finally, a focus group discussion took place to contextualise the observed variations.

RESULTS

HTA aided in constructing a clinical checking model with six primary subtasks and 28 lower subtasks. CPs often omitted subtasks during checks, diverging from prescribed protocols. These deviations, observed in controlled environment, reveal an ingrained aspect within the professional culture of pharmacists, where there may be a tendency not to strictly adhere to protocols, despite variations in work conditions. Contributing factors to this culture include the exercise of professional judgment, reliance on others, and prioritisation of patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights ongoing deviations from SOPs during clinical prescription checks in community pharmacies, suggesting a cultural tendency. Future research should delve into risk management strategies for these deviations and address the delicate balance between flexibility and stringent compliance.

Incorporating 'reason for use' into the prescribing process of medication: a survey on the opinion of patients in Flanders, Belgium

Background

A longstanding debate exists about including a ‘reason for use’ on prescriptions for medication. Little is known, however, about patients’ opinions on this subject.

Methods

An internet-based questionnaire, consisting mainly of Likert scale questions, was distributed online to the general public in Belgium. Results from 1034 responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Opinions from patients toward including a ‘reason for use’ on medication prescriptions were generally positive. A clear majority of 62% increased to 74% after providing information about the possible link between indication and medication dose. A majority of the participants expressed a positive attitude regardless of the pathology involved, although sexually transmitted diseases were of greatest concern. Other important aspects differentiating the opinion positively was the transmission of this information in an electronic-only form and limiting it to the regular pharmacist excluding further use by third parties such as other pharmacies or insurance companies. Patients using multiple medicines and those frequenting the same pharmacy also had a more favorable opinion about including the reason for use. In addition, analysis of physician and pharmacist questionnaire responses, explicitly excluded from the main analysis, confirmed the known contrasting opinions in these subgroups.

Conclusions

Patients have strong support for transferring information on the ‘reason for use’ of their prescriptions to their regular pharmacy if this is done in a secure and privacy-conscious way enabling increased patient safety and improved pharmaceutical care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08596-w.

Prescribers' perspectives on including reason for use information on prescriptions and medication labels: a qualitative thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

The indication for prescribing a particular medication, or its reason for use (RFU) is a crucial piece of information for all those involved in the circle of care. Research has shown that sharing RFU information with physicians, pharmacists and patients improves patient safety and patient adherence, however RFU is rarely added on prescriptions by prescribers or on medication labels for patients to reference.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 prescribers in Southern Ontario, Canada, to learn prescribers' current attitudes on the addition of RFU on prescriptions and medication labels. A trained interviewer used a semi-structured interview guide for each interview. The interviews explored how the sharing of RFU information would impact prescribers' workflows and practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically coded.

RESULTS

The analysis yielded four main themes: Current Practice, Future Practice, Changing Culture, and Collaboration. Most of the prescribers interviewed do not currently add RFU to prescriptions. Prescribers were open to sharing RFU with colleagues via a regional database but wanted the ability to provide context for the prescribed medication within the system. Many prescribers were wary of the impact of adding RFU on their workflow but felt it could save time by avoiding clarifying questions from pharmacists. Increased interprofessional collaboration, increased patient understanding of prescribed medications, avoiding guesswork when determining indications and decreased misinterpretation regarding RFU were cited by most prescribers as benefits to including RFU information.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribers were generally open to sharing RFU and clearly identified the benefits to pharmacists and patients if added. Critically, they also identified benefits to their own practices. These results can be used to guide the implementation of future initiatives to promote the sharing of RFU in healthcare teams.