Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Addict Sci Clin Pract ; 18(1): 22, 2023 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2299331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Attempts to routinely embed brief interventions in health systems have long been challenging, with healthcare professionals concerned about role adequacy, legitimacy, and support. This is the first study to explore clinical pharmacists' experiences of discussing alcohol with patients in their new role in UK primary care, in developing a novel approach to brief intervention. It investigates their confidence with the subject of alcohol in routine practice and explores views on a new approach, integrating alcohol into the medication review as another drug directly linked to the patient's health conditions and medicines, rather than a separated 'healthy living' issue. The study forms part of wider efforts to repurpose and reimagine the potential application of brief interventions and to rework their contents. METHODS: Longitudinal qualitative study of 10 recruits to the new clinical pharmacist role in English primary care, involving three semi-structured interviews over approximately 16 months, supplemented by 10 one-off interviews with pharmacists already established in general practice. RESULTS: When raised at all, enquiring about alcohol in medication reviews was described in terms of calculating dose and level of consumption, leading to crude advice to reduce drinking. The idea was that those who appeared dependent should be referred to specialist services, though few such referrals were recalled. Pharmacists acknowledged that they were not currently considering alcohol as a drug in their practice and were interested in learning more about this concept and the approach it entailed, particularly in relation to polypharmacy. Some recognised a linked need to enhance consultation skills. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol complicates routine clinical care and adversely impacts patient outcomes, even for those drinking at seemingly unremarkable levels. Changing clinical practice on alcohol requires engaging with, and supportively challenging, routine practices and entrenched ideas of different kinds. Framing alcohol as a drug may help shift the focus from patients with alcohol problems to problems caused for patients by alcohol. This is less stigmatising and provides role legitimacy for pharmacists to address alcohol clinically in medication reviews, thus providing one element in the formation of a new prevention paradigm. This approach invites further innovations tailored to other healthcare professional roles.


Subject(s)
Pharmacists , Professional Role , Humans , Qualitative Research , Polypharmacy , Primary Health Care
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(4): e069017, 2023 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2299330

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The new structured medication review (SMR) service was introduced into the National Health Service in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, following a major expansion of clinical pharmacists within new formations known as primary care networks (PCNs). The aim of the SMR is to tackle problematic polypharmacy through comprehensive, personalised medication reviews involving shared decision-making. Investigation of clinical pharmacists' perceptions of training needs and skills acquisition issues for person-centred consultation practice will help better understand their readiness for these new roles. DESIGN: A longitudinal interview and observational study in general practice. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A longitudinal study of 10 newly recruited clinical pharmacists interviewed three times, plus a single interview with 10 pharmacists recruited earlier and already established in general practice, across 20 newly forming PCNs in England. Observation of a compulsory 2-day history taking and consultation skills workshop. ANALYSIS: A modified framework method supported a constructionist thematic analysis. RESULTS: Remote working during the pandemic limited opportunities for patient-facing contact. Pharmacists new to their role in general practice were predominantly concerned with improving clinical knowledge and competence. Most said they already practiced person-centred care, using this terminology to describe transactional medicines-focused practice. Pharmacists rarely received direct feedback on consultation practice to calibrate perceptions of their own competence in person-centred communication, including shared decision-making skills. Training thus provided knowledge delivery with limited opportunities for actual skills acquisition. Pharmacists had difficulty translating abstract consultation principles into specific consultation practices. CONCLUSION: SMRs were introduced when the dedicated workforce was largely new and being trained. Addressing problematic polypharmacy requires structural and organisational interventions to enhance the communication skills of clinical pharmacists (and other health professionals), and their use in practice. The development of person-centred consultation skills requires much more substantial support than has so far been provided for clinical pharmacists.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , General Practice , Humans , Pharmacists , Pandemics , Longitudinal Studies , State Medicine , Attitude of Health Personnel , Referral and Consultation
3.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 2022 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227158

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, Cominarty) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Spikevax) are mRNA vaccines that elicit antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) and have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Because vaccine efficacy and antibody levels waned over time after the two-shot primary series, the FDA authorized a booster (third) dose for both mRNA vaccines to adults in the fall of 2021. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the magnitude and durability of S-RBD IgG after the booster mRNA vaccine dose in comparison to the primary series. We also compared S-RBD IgG levels after BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 boosters and explored effects of age and prior infection. METHODS: Surrounding receipt of the second and third homologous mRNA vaccine doses, adults in an employee-based cohort provided serum and completed questionnaires, including information about prior COVID-19 infection. IgG to S-RBD was measured using an ImmunoCAP-based system. A subset of samples were assayed for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid by commercial assay. RESULTS: 228 subjects had samples collected between 7 and 150 days after their primary series vaccine, and 117 subjects had samples collected in the same time frame after their boost. Antibody levels 7-31 days after the primary series and booster were similar, but S-RBD IgG was more durable over time after the boost, regardless of prior infection status. In addition, mRNA-1273 post-boost antibody levels exceeded BNT162b2 out to 5 months. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 mRNA vaccine boosters increase antibody durability, suggesting enhanced long-term clinical protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the two-shot regimen.

4.
Br J Gen Pract ; 2022 Apr 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2080550

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: NHS England has introduced a new structured medication review (SMR) service within primary care networks (PCNs) forming during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy drivers are addressing problematic polypharmacy, reducing avoidable hospitalisations, and delivering better value from medicines spending. This study explores early implementation of the SMR from the perspective of the primary care clinical pharmacist workforce. AIM: To identify factors affecting the early implementation of the SMR service. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in general practice between September 2020 and June 2021. METHOD: Two semi-structured interviews were carried out with each of 10 newly appointed pharmacists (20 in total) in 10 PCNs in Northern England; and one interview was carried out with 10 pharmacists already established in GP practices in 10 other PCNs across England. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a modified framework method supported a constructionist thematic analysis. RESULTS: SMRs were not yet a PCN priority and SMR implementation was largely delegated to individual pharmacists; those already in general practice appearing to be more ready for implementation. New pharmacists were on the primary care education pathway and drew on pre-existing practice frames, habits, and heuristics. Those lacking patient-facing expertise sought template-driven, institution-centred practice. Consequently, SMR practices reverted to prior medication review practices, compromising the distinct purposes of the new service. CONCLUSION: Early SMR implementation did not match the vision for patients presented in policy of an invited, holistic, shared decision-making opportunity offered by well-trained pharmacists. There is an important opportunity cost of SMR implementation without prior adequate skills development, testing, and refining.

5.
Pilot Feasibility Stud ; 8(1): 222, 2022 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053985

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to increase the safety and experience of transitions for older people through greater patient involvement during the hospital stay. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted on NHS inpatient wards (clusters) where ≥ 40% of patients were routinely ≥ 75 years. Wards were randomised to YCNY or usual care using an unequal allocation ratio (3:2). We aimed to recruit up to 20 patients per ward. Follow-up included routine data collection and questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge. Eligible patients were ≥ 75 years, discharged home, stayed overnight on participating wards, and could read and understand English. The trial assessed the feasibility of delivering YCNY and the trial methodology through recruitment rates, outcome completion rates, and a qualitative evaluation. The accuracy of using routinely coded data for the primary outcome in the definitive trial was assessed by extracting discharge information for up to ten nonindividual consenting patients per ward. RESULTS: Ten wards were randomised (6 intervention, 4 control). One ward withdrew, and two wards were unable to deliver the intervention. Seven-hundred twenty-one patients were successfully screened, and 161 were recruited (95 intervention, 66 control). The patient post-discharge attrition rate was 17.4% (n = 28). Primary outcome data were gathered for 91.9% of participants with 75.2% and 59.0% providing secondary outcome data at 5 and 30 days post-discharge respectively. Item completion within questionnaires was generally high. Post-discharge follow-up was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting 90-day response rates (16.8%). Data from 88 nonindividual consenting patients identified an error rate of 15% when using routinely coded data for the primary outcome. No unexpected serious adverse events were identified. Most patients viewed YCNY favourably. Staff agreed with it in principle, but ward pressures and organisational contexts hampered implementation. There was a need to sustain engagement, provide clarity on roles and responsibilities, and account for fluctuations in patients' health, capacity, and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: If implementation challenges can be overcome, YCNY represents a step towards involving older people as partners in their care to improve the safety and experience of their transitions from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 51154948.

6.
Front Immunol ; 13: 850987, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779942

ABSTRACT

Three COVID-19 vaccines have received FDA-authorization and are in use in the United States, but there is limited head-to-head data on the durability of the immune response elicited by these vaccines. Using a quantitative assay we studied binding IgG antibodies elicited by BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or Ad26.COV2.S in an employee cohort over a span out to 10 months. Age and sex were explored as response modifiers. Of 234 subjects in the vaccine cohort, 114 received BNT162b2, 114 received mRNA-1273 and six received Ad26.COV2.S. IgG levels measured between seven to 20 days after the second vaccination were similar in recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-127 and were ~50-fold higher than in recipients of Ad26.COV2.S. However, by day 21 and at later time points IgG levels elicited by BNT162b2 were lower than mRNA-1273. Accordingly, the IgG decay curve was steeper for BNT162b2 than mRNA-1273. Age was a significant modifier of IgG levels in recipients of BNT162b2, but not mRNA-1273. After six months, IgG levels elicited by BNT162b2, but not mRNA-1273, were lower than IgG levels in patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 six months earlier. Similar findings were observed when comparing vaccine-elicited antibodies with steady-state IgG targeting seasonal human coronaviruses. Differential IgG decay could contribute to differences observed in clinical protection over time between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Ad26COVS1 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Vaccination
9.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 20(1): 1094, 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-948419

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. METHODS: The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events ('Confidence'), a Knowledge assessment ('Knowledge') and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. RESULTS: We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. ß = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08-2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. ß = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42-3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. ß = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31-3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. ß = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. ß = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82-3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. ß = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45-3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the 'tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery', suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the 'importance of experience and reference points for learning', suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the 'peer learning and engagement' they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, 'opportunities to tailor learning', suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this.


Subject(s)
Education , Health Personnel , Resilience, Psychological , Students , Delivery of Health Care , Education/standards , Health Personnel/education , Humans , Occupational Stress , Students/psychology
10.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol ; 182(5): 417-424, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1097047

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Detailed understanding of the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (CO-VID-19) has been hampered by a lack of quantitative antibody assays. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a quantitative assay for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 proteins that could be implemented in clinical and research laboratories. METHODS: The biotin-streptavidin technique was used to conjugate SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) or nucleocapsid protein to the solid phase of the ImmunoCAP. Plasma and serum samples from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 60) and samples from donors banked before the emergence of COVID-19 (n = 109) were used in the assay. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were followed longitudinally in a subset of samples and were related to total IgG and IgG to reference antigens using an ImmunoCAP 250 platform. RESULTS: At a cutoff of 2.5 µg/mL, the assay demonstrated sensitivity and specificity exceeding 95% for IgG to both SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Among 36 patients evaluated in a post-hospital follow-up clinic, median levels of IgG to spike-RBD and nucleocapsid were 34.7 µg/mL (IQR 18-52) and 24.5 µg/mL (IQR 9-59), respectively. Among 17 patients with longitudinal samples, there was a wide variation in the magnitude of IgG responses, but generally the response to spike-RBD and to nucleocapsid occurred in parallel, with peak levels approaching 100 µg/mL, or 1% of total IgG. CONCLUSIONS: We have described a quantitative assay to measure IgG to SARS-CoV-2 that could be used in clinical and research laboratories and implemented at scale. The assay can easily be adapted to measure IgG to mutated COVID-19 proteins, has good performance characteristics, and has a readout in standardized units.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL