Developing a Model for Pharmaceutical Palliative Care in Rural Areas-Experience from Scotland.

Palliative care is increasingly delivered in the community but access to medicines, particularly 'out of hours' remains problematic. This paper describes the experience of developing a model to deliver pharmaceutical palliative care in rural Scotland via the MacMillan Rural Palliative Care Pharmacist Practitioner (MRPP) project. The focus of the service was better integration of the MRPP into different care settings and professional teams, and to develop educational resources for the wider MDT including Care Home and Social Care staff on medicine related issues in palliative care. A variety of integration activities are reported in the paper with advice on how to achieve this. Similarly, many resources were developed, including bespoke training on pharmaceutical matters for Care Home staff. The experience allowed for a three step service and sustainability model for community pharmacy palliative care services to be developed. Moving through the steps, the key roles and responsibilities of the MRPP gradually shift towards the local Community Pharmacist(s), with the MRPP starting from a locality-based hands-on role to a wider supportive facilitating role for local champions. It is acknowledged that successful delivery of the model is dependent on alignment of resources, infrastructure and local community support.

A qualitative study of the relationship between the Scottish Medicines Consortium and their clinical experts.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Internationally, health technology assessments (HTAs) are ubiquitous drivers to health policy. Within Scotland, the Scottish Medicines Consortium undertakes the medicine review process. Input from clinical experts, involved in frontline care, is an integral component of the assessment process. This paper explores the relationship between the clinical experts and the HTA agency within Scotland to better understand what motivates expert clinicians to devote their time to the medicine review process with no remuneration. METHODS: Twenty-seven clinical experts from 16 different clinical specialties took part in one-to-one interviews at their place of work between October 2011 and March 2012. Data analysis was inductive and comprised the organization of data into a framework and a subsequent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three distinct themes were identified: (1) recruitment, which identified two types of explanations for the experts' appointment: external justification (nominated by another) and internal justification (being recognized as an expert); (2) flexibility of the procedures, with experts able to determine their own response style and negotiate timelines; (3) health care systems, demonstrating that their affiliation to the health system underpinned the relationship and their motivation to be clinical experts. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study provide insight into the elements important to clinicians who voluntarily contribute to HTA processes. Examination of these elements in the context of the organizational citizenship behavior literature provides a foundation on which to improve understanding of this relationship and sustain and improve clinical expert participation in an increasingly intensified clinical environment and within cash-limited HTA systems.