Patient assessment and documentation integrated in community practice: chat, check, and chart

Clinical reasoning by pharmacists: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency for pharmacists, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity that complicates teaching and assessment. This scoping review was conducted to identify, map, and examine evidence on used cognitive processes and their conceptualization of clinical reasoning by pharmacists.

METHODS

In March 2021, seven databases were searched for relevant primary research studies. Included were studies that examined cognitive processes in pharmacists while addressing a clinical scenario in a pharmacy-related setting. Using descriptive analysis, study characteristics, conceptualizations, operationalizations, and key findings were mapped, summarized, and examined. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

From 2252 abstracts, 17 studies were included that examined clinical reasoning in the context of forming a diagnosis (n = 9) or determining medication appropriateness (n = 4). Most studies conceptualized clinical reasoning as a context-dependent cognitive process whereby pharmacists apply and integrate knowledge and clinical experience to interpret available clinical data. Different terms labelled pharmacists' reasoning that showed analytical and intuitive approaches to clinical scenarios, either separately or combined. Medication review studies reported a predominance of analytical reasoning. The majority of diagnosis-forming studies in primary care identified no distinct cognitive reasoning pattern when addressing self-care scenarios.

IMPLICATIONS

This overview reflects a small but growing body of research on clinical reasoning by pharmacists. It is recommended that this competence be taught by explicating and reflecting on clinical reasoning as separate stage of the clinical decision-making process with transparent cognitive processes.

Development of Quality Indicators to Assess Oral Anticoagulant Management in Community Pharmacies for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the quality of oral anticoagulant management by community pharmacists. There is no complete set of quality indicators available for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of specific quality indicators to assess oral anticoagulant management by community pharmacists for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Quality indicators were developed in 3 phases. In phase 1, potential quality indicators were generated based on clinical guidelines and a literature review. In phase 2, a modified RAND appropriateness method involving 2 rounds was implemented with 9 experts, who judged the appropriateness of quality indicators generated in phase 1 based on the extent to which they were accurate, based on evidence, relevant, representative of best practices, and measurable in community pharmacies. Phase 3 consisted of a feasibility assessment in 5 community pharmacies on 2 patients each.

RESULTS

The final set included 38 quality indicators grouped into 6 categories: documentation (n = 29), risk assessment (n = 3), clinical control (n = 1), clinical follow-up (n = 15), choice of therapy (n = 11), and interaction management (n = 8). The quality indicators referred to process of care (n = 34), clinical outcomes (n = 2), or structure of care (n = 2). There were 24 quality indicators related to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and 17 were related to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). To assess quality indicators, a questionnaire was developed for completion by community pharmacists for each patient, which included 17 questions about VKA patients and 12 questions about DOAC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A first set of quality indicators is now available to assess the quality of oral anticoagulant management by community pharmacists for patients with AF.

DISCLOSURES

This research was supported by the Réseau Québécois de recherche sur le médicament (RQRM); the Blueprint for Pharmacy in collaboration with Pfizer Canada; and the Cercle du Doyen of the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montreal. The study sponsors were not involved in the study design, data collection, data interpretation, the writing of the article, or the decision to submit the report for publication. Chartrand received a scholarship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé (FRQ-S), the Réseau Québécois de recherche sur l'usage des médicaments with Pfizer, and the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Montreal. Guénette holds a Junior-1 Clinician Researcher Award from the FRQ-S in partnership with the Société québécoise d'hypertension artérielle. Williamson holds a Junior-1 Career Award from the FRQ-S. Côté reported being a medical speaker for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, and Pfizer Canada. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Lalonde, Chartrand, and Martin. Chartrand, Martin, and Lalonde collected the data, along with Brouillette, Côté, Huot, Landry, Martineau, Perreault, Williamson, and White-Guay. Data interpretation was performed by Chartrand, Gagnon, and Lalonde, along with Guénette and Martin. The manuscript was primarily written by Chartrand, along with Guénette and Lalonde, and revised by Chartrand, Guénette, and Lalonde, along with the other authors. A portion of this study's results was presented at the 4th RQRM Annual Meeting on September 22-23, 2014, in Orford, Quebec, Canada, in the form of an abstract, which was published in the Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 2014;21(2):e312.

Assessing the knowledge to practice gap: The asthma practices of community pharmacists

Background

Community pharmacists are well positioned to identify patients with poorly controlled asthma and trained to optimize asthma therapy. Yet, over 90% of patients with asthma live with uncontrolled disease. We sought to understand the current state of asthma management in practice in Alberta and explore the potential use of the Chat, Check and Chart (CCC) model to enhance pharmacists' care for patients with asthma.

Methods

An 18-question survey was used to examine pharmacists' monitoring of asthma control and prior use of the CCC tools. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the response rate, sample demographics, asthma management and CCC use. Survey validity and reliability were established.

Results

One hundred randomly selected pharmacists completed the online survey with a 40% (100/250) response rate. A third of responding pharmacists reported talking to most patients about asthma symptoms and medication, with a greater focus on talking with patients on new prescriptions over those with ongoing therapies. Fewer than 1 in 10 pharmacists routinely talked to most patients about asthma action plans (AAPs). The majority of pharmacists (76%) were familiar with the CCC model, and 83% of those reported that the CCC model influenced their practice anywhere from somewhat (45%) to a great deal (38%). Both scales had good reliability, and factor analysis provided support for scale validity.

Conclusions

There was considerable variability in pharmacists' activities in monitoring asthma. Pharmacists rarely used AAPs. The CCC model had a high level of self-reported familiarity, use and influence among pharmacists.