Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Interprofessional collaboration (IPC): A comparative analysis of global standards for pharmacy practice
Pharmacy Education ; 22(5):46-47, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2206512
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Globally, disparities exist in healthcare quality, accessibility and regulation (Das, & Gertler, 2007). Consequently, few countries have governing bodies overlooking healthcare-professional (HCP) practice (Epstein, & Bing, 2011). Research has suggested that HCP regulation depended on nations' human development index (HDI), gross domestic product (GDP), and safety (Ozturk, & Topcu, 2014). IPC enables partnership working between HCPs to ensure patient-centred care (Gregory, & Austin, 2016). This study thematically analysed pharmacy professional standards' documents of various countries and investigated whether nations' developmental parameters influenced pharmacy regulation. Objectives * To compare global pharmacy professional standards on IPC. * To synthesise a thematic framework to evaluate literature on IPC. * To iInvestigate the relationship between HDI, GDP, global peace index (GPI), and pharmacy regulation. Method(s) A group (N = 8) of countries were studied based on 2018 HDI classification;(N = 4) 'very high' (Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, United Kingdom) and (N = 4) 'low' (Solomon Islands, Haiti, Yemen, South Sudan). Pharmacy professional standards' documents were screened to extract IPC-related themes via a constant comparative method. This facilitated thematic framework synthesis;'pharmacists' attitudes' and 'patient outcomes' were measures of IPC. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), (N = 17) peer-reviewed journal articles from 2010-2019 studying pharmacists in sample countries were selected. Key terms searched on Medline/PubMed databases were 'IPC', 'pharmacist' and 'professional standards'. Literature was then reviewed with reference to the thematic framework and development metrics (HDI/GDP/GPI). This study did not require ethics approval. Result(s) Of the countries (N = 8) studied, only HDI-classified 'very high' had professional standards' documents, frequently incorporating IPC. Key themes were 'shared decision-making', 'continuity-of-care', and 'effective communication'. Seven studies referred to these themes and confirmed IPC benefits fewer medication-related errors4. The number of IPC standards and HDI-rank for 'very high' countries, except Hong Kong, were positively correlated, suggesting possible economic impact on pharmacy sector progress. Two studies found cultural influences on Hong Kong pharmacists' attitudes as contributory to a hierarchical than IPC-approach to healthcare provision5. HDI and GPI had a strong negative correlation (r = -0.83), potentially explaining low pharmacist density and GDP healthcare expenditure in HDI-classified low. Conclusion(s) Results denote that IPC improved patient safety (Gregory, & Austin, 2016). Global differences existed in pharmacists' attitudes and IPC training. These correlated with growing gaps in HDI and GPI between HDI-classified 'very high' and 'low' countries. Qualitative analysis highlighted the need for elaboration of 'continuity-of-care' and inclusion of 'understanding roles/responsibilities of team members' in the United Kingdom's professional standards set by the General Pharmaceutical Council. Future work could study 2021/inequality-adjusted HDI data, 'high'/'medium' HDI countries to improve validity alongside COVID19 impact on GDP and pharmacy practice.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: EMBASE Language: English Journal: Pharmacy Education Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: Databases of international organizations Database: EMBASE Language: English Journal: Pharmacy Education Year: 2022 Document Type: Article