Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England

A qualitative evaluation of pharmacy technician opinions about administering immunizations

Introduction

Pharmacy technicians began administering immunizations in Idaho State as part of a new administrative rule in 2017. Rapid expansion of pharmacy technicians as immunizers occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies demonstrate the success of having technicians as immunizers but, the opinions of technicians themselves about immunizing have not been explored.

Methods

Key informant interviews were conducted to evaluate the opinions of certified and immunization-trained pharmacy technicians in the State of Idaho. A key informant interview script was utilized and included questions regarding satisfaction with current position, feelings about responsibility in the pharmacy, confidence administering immunizations to patients, changes patient interactions after becoming immunization-trained, support in the pharmacy, and opinion about expansion of immunization training for technicians to other states. The aim of this research was to gather the opinions of pharmacy technicians regarding the impact of administering immunizations on job satisfaction and career outlook.

Results

Fifteen pharmacy technicians were interviewed. All participants believed their role as immunizers improved job satisfaction and feelings of being a valuable part of the pharmacy team. Technicians also believed being able to immunize aided in pharmacy workflow, decreased wait time for immunizations at their respective pharmacies, and increased the number of immunizations being administered. Respondents also believed technicians should be allowed to administer immunizations nation-wide but also felt strongly that the decision to immunize should be up to each individual pharmacy technician.

Conclusion

Immunizing technicians in this study believe that this advanced role has had a positive impact on their job satisfaction, feeling valued in the workplace, and likelihood of staying in their current position. Immunizing has also led to positive engagement with patients and beliefs that they are providing an impactful service to their communities.

Medication-Related Outcomes and Health Equity: Evidence for Pharmaceutical Care

Marginalised people experience diminished access to pharmaceutical care and worse medication-related outcomes than the general population. Health equity is a global priority. This article explores the key evidence of health inequity and medication use, structures the causes and contributory factors and suggests opportunities that can be taken to advance the pharmaceutical care agenda so as to achieve health equity. The causes of, and contributors to, this inequity are multi-fold, with patient- and person-related factors being the most commonly reported. Limited evidence is available to identify risk factors related to other aspects of a personal medication use system, such as technology, tasks, tools and the internal and the external environments. Multiple opportunities exist to enhance equity in medication-related outcomes through pharmaceutical care research and practice. To optimise the effects and the sustainable implementation of these opportunities, it is important to (1) ensure the meaningful inclusion and engagement of members of marginalised groups, (2) use a person-centred approach and (3) apply a systems-based approach to address all of the necessary components of a system that interact and form a network as work processes that produce system outcomes.

Exploring the use of digital technology to deliver healthcare services with explicit consideration of health inequalities in UK settings: A scoping review

Objective

To map and explore existing evidence on the use of digital technology to deliver healthcare services with explicit consideration of health inequalities in UK settings.

Methods

We searched six bibliographic databases, and the National Health Service (NHS) websites of each UK nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Restrictions were applied on publication date (2013-2021) and publication language (English). Records were independently screened against eligibility criteria by pairs of reviewers from the team. Articles reporting relevant qualitative and/or quantitative research were included. Data were synthesised narratively.

Results

Eleven articles, reporting data from nine interventions, were included. Articles reported findings from quantitative (n = 5), qualitative (n = 5), and mixed-methods (n = 1) studies. Study settings were mainly community based, with only one hospital based. Two interventions targeted service users, and seven interventions targeted healthcare providers. Two studies were explicitly and directly aimed at (and designed for) addressing health inequalities, with the remaining studies addressing them indirectly (e.g. study population can be classed as disadvantaged). Seven articles reported data on implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) and four articles reported data on effectiveness outcomes, with only one intervention demonstrating cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

It is not yet clear if digital health interventions/services in the UK work for those most at risk of health inequalities. The current evidence base is significantly underdeveloped, and research/intervention efforts have been largely driven by healthcare provider/system needs, rather than those of service users. Digital health interventions can help address health inequalities, but a range of barriers persist, alongside a potential for exacerbation of health inequalities.

Connections and Biases in Health Equity and Culture Research: A Semantic Network Analysis

Health equity is a rather complex issue. Social context and economical disparities, are known to be determining factors. Cultural and educational constrains however, are also important contributors to the establishment and development of health inequities. As an important starting point for a comprehensive discussion, a detailed analysis of the literature corpus is thus desirable: we need to recognize what has been done, under what circumstances, even what possible sources of bias exist in our current discussion on this relevant issue. By finding these trends and biases we will be better equipped to modulate them and find avenues that may lead us to a more integrated view of health inequity, potentially enhancing our capabilities to intervene to ameliorate it. In this study, we characterized at a large scale, the social and cultural determinants most frequently reported in current global research of health inequity and the interrelationships among them in different populations under diverse contexts. We used a data/literature mining approach to the current literature followed by a semantic network analysis of the interrelationships discovered. The analyzed structured corpus consisted in circa 950 articles categorized by means of the Medical Subheadings (MeSH) content-descriptor from 2014 to 2021. Further analyses involved systematic searches in the LILACS and DOAJ databases, as additional sources. The use of data analytics techniques allowed us to find a number of non-trivial connections, pointed out to existing biases and under-represented issues and let us discuss what are the most relevant concepts that are (and are not) being discussed in the context of Health Equity and Culture.

'He or she maybe doesn't know there is such a thing as a review': A qualitative investigation exploring barriers and facilitators to accessing medication reviews from the perspective of people from ethnic minority communities

Introduction

Regular reviews of medications, including prescription reviews and adherence reviews, are vital to support pharmacological effectiveness and optimize health outcomes for patients. Despite being more likely to report a long‐term illness that requires medication when compared to their white counterparts, individuals from ethnic minority communities are less likely to engage with regular medication reviews, with inequalities negatively affecting their access. It is important to understand what barriers may exist that impact the access of those from ethnic minority communities and to identify measures that may act to facilitate improved service accessibility for these groups.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted between June and August 2021 using the following formats as permitted by governmental COVID‐19 restrictions: in person, over the telephone or via video call. Perspectives on service accessibility and any associated barriers and facilitators were discussed. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes. QSR NVivo (Version 12) facilitated data management. Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority (ref: 21/HRA/1426).

Results

In total 20 participants from ethnic minority communities were interviewed; these participants included 16 UK citizens, 2 refugees and 2 asylum seekers, and represented a total of 5 different ethnic groups. Three themes were developed from the data regarding the perceived barriers and facilitators affecting access to medication reviews and identified approaches to improve the accessibility of such services for ethnic minority patients. These centred on (1) building knowledge and understanding about medication reviews; (2) delivering medication review services; and (3) appreciating the lived experience of patients.

Conclusion

The results of this study have important implications for addressing inequalities that affect ethnic minority communities. Involving patients and practitioners to work collaboratively in coproduction approaches could enable better design, implementation and delivery of accessible medication review services that are culturally competent.

Patient or Public Contribution

The National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group at Newcastle University supported the study design and conceptualization. Seven patient champions inputted to ensure that the research was conducted, and the findings were reported, with cultural sensitivity.

The views of New Zealand general practitioners and patients on a proposed risk assessment and communication tool: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory

BACKGROUND

Communicating risks of medication harm and obtaining informed consent is difficult due to structural barriers, language and cultural practices, bias and a lack of resources appropriately tailored for the health literacy of most patients. A decision support tool was proposed to alert prescribers of risk and provide tailored information for patients to facilitate informed decision-making with patients and their whānau (family) around medication use. Patient and prescriber co-design was used to ensure the tool was designed to best meet the needs of end-users and avoid increasing health inequity. This paper describes the first stage of the co-design process.

METHOD

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to prospectively evaluate the tool. Semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen patients (five Māori, five Pasifika and five NZ European) and nine general practitioners (two Māori and seven European).

RESULTS

Three themes were identified, which related to the three NPT concepts most relevant to developing the tool. Theme 1 (coherence: meaning and sense making by participants) explored participants' understanding of prescribing safety, medication harm and risk, which is based on experience. Patients want as much information as possible about their medications and risk, but doctors find it difficult to communicate that information. Theme 2 related to the NPT concept of cognitive participation (commitment and engagement by participants) explored what participants thought about a prescribing decision support tool. Participants were cautiously optimistic, but worried about potential harm arising from its use. They also identified requirements for the tool and features to avoid. Theme 3 describes the collective action required for successful implementation of the tool; namely, culturally safe and trustworthy doctor-patient relationships.

CONCLUSION

Patients and general practitioners provided different perspectives when prospectively evaluating the proposed risk assessment and communication tool. This co-design research identified important pre-requisites for the tool and features to avoid and novel ideas for the proposed tool. Overall participants supported the development of the proposed risk assessment and communication tool, but identified the important role that doctor-patient relationships would play to ensure successful implementation. The use of Māori and Pacific languages in the proposed tool may enhance engagement and understanding.

Implementing a digital patient feedback system: an analysis using normalisation process theory

BACKGROUND

Patient feedback in the English NHS is now widespread and digital methods are increasingly used. Adoption of digital methods depends on socio-technical and contextual factors, alongside human agency and lived experience. Moreover, the introduction of these methods may be perceived as disruptive of organisational and clinical routines. The focus of this paper is on the implementation of a particular digital feedback intervention that was co-designed with health professionals and patients (the DEPEND study).

METHODS

The digital feedback intervention was conceptualised as a complex intervention and thus the study focused on the contexts within which it operated, and how the different participants made sense of the intervention and engaged with it (or not). Four health care sites were studied: an acute setting, a mental health setting, and two general practices. Qualitative data was collected through interviews and focus groups with professionals, patients and carers. In total 51 staff, 24 patients and 8 carers were included. Forty-two observations of the use of the digital feedback system were carried out in the four settings. Data analysis was based on modified grounded theory and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) formed the conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Digital feedback made sense to health care staff as it was seen as attractive, fast to complete and easier to analyse. Patients had a range of views depending on their familiarity with the digital world. Patients mentioned barriers such as kiosk not being visible, privacy, lack of digital know-how, technical hitches with the touchscreen. Collective action in maintaining participation again differed between sites because of workload pressure, perceptions of roles and responsibilities; and in the mental health site major organisational change was taking place. For mental health service users, their relationship with staff and their own health status determined their digital use.

CONCLUSION

The potential of digital feedback was recognised but implementation should take local contexts, different patient groups and organisational leadership into account. Patient involvement in change and adaptation of the intervention was important in enhancing the embedding of digital methods in routine feedback. NPT allowed for a in-depth understanding of actions and interactions of both staff and patients.