Evaluating the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in the Australian general practice setting: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have been co-located in general practice teams to support the quality use of medicines and optimise patient health outcomes. Evidence of the impact of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices is sparse. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices. METHOD: A prospective observational study was conducted in eight general practices in the Australian Capital Territory, where each general practice employed a pharmacist on a part-time basis for 18 months. A recommended, but flexible, list of activities was provided for pharmacists. Descriptive information on general practice pharmacist-led activities, collected with an online diary, was analysed. The potential clinical, economic, and organisational impact of pharmacist-led clinical activities was evaluated using the CLinical Economic Organisational (CLEO) tool, with a modified economic dimension. RESULTS: Nine pharmacists reported 4290 activities over 3918.5 work hours in general practice. Medication management services were the primary clinical activity of pharmacists. In medication reviews, 75% of the pharmacists' recommendations were fully accepted by general practitioners. Conducting clinical audits, updating patients' medical records, and providing information to patients and staff were other major activities of pharmacists. Of 2419 clinical activities, around 50% had the potential for a moderate or major positive clinical impact on patients. Sixty-three per cent of activities had the potential to decrease healthcare costs. Almost all the pharmacist-led clinical activities had a positive organisational impact. CONCLUSION: Most pharmacist-led clinical activities in general practice had the potential for a positive impact on patients and reduction in healthcare costs, supporting the expansion of this model in Australia.

Factors contributing to pharmacists leaving employment in general practice in Australia: an exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify perceived factors contributing to pharmacists leaving employment in general practice. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists who had left employment in general practice within 12 months of commencing (5 pharmacists out of 14 recruited into these roles) in Canberra, Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken. KEY FINDINGS: The main specific reasons cited for leaving were lack of utilisation and part-time hours, while the over-arching themes identified were: challenges of the new role, poor role definition, professional relationships and job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of newly appointed general practice pharmacists, employment turnover was relatively high. The interview findings indicated a need for strategies, including having clear role descriptions that are understood by all members of the practice team, so that pharmacists with appropriate skillsets can be supported and retained in the general practice setting.

Interprofessional collaboration within general practice teams following the inclusion of non-dispensing pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) since 2016. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness are key considerations in providing high-quality patient care. These concepts have not been well studied following the inclusion of a pharmacist in general practice teams. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted to explore collaboration between pharmacists and health professionals in eight general practices in the ACT, where pharmacists were included in their teams. A validated survey instrument was adapted and utilised to assess the changes in interprofessional collaboration over time following the addition of a pharmacist. Another validated survey was utilised to explore team effectiveness at the end of the study. Semi-structured interviews, with a thematic analysis, were conducted with a purposeful sample of general practice staff members to understand the factors influencing the development of interprofessional collaboration. RESULTS: In total, 56 and 41 participants completed the baseline and follow-up survey, including 26 who completed both surveys to assess the change in collaboration over time. Interprofessional collaboration scores were high initially and did not change over time. Team effectiveness was also high at the end of the study. Twenty-one individuals participated in interviews, which generated four main interrelated themes related to interprofessional collaboration: professional working relationships, trust, commitment to collaboration, and barriers to collaboration. Trust was integral to professional working relationships and commitment to collaboration. The barriers to collaboration included not having a role description for pharmacists, inadequate interest to initiate working relationships, lack of dedicated time for interaction, lack of utilisation, and poor awareness of pharmacist-led activities in general practice. CONCLUSION: Interprofessional collaboration was initially high and not influenced by the addition of a pharmacist, perhaps reflecting the inherent nature of the general practices willing to include a pharmacist within their team. Introducing a clear job description for pharmacists, and dedicating time to interact with pharmacists, could be beneficial in improving trust and professional working relationships and enhancing collaboration between the pharmacists and other general practice team members.

Patients' Opinions towards the Services of Pharmacists Based in General Practice.

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services for patients. In Australia, pharmacists' role in general practice has been slowly expanding. However, there is a paucity of research to explore patients' opinions toward pharmacist-led services in general practice. This study aimed to assess patient awareness, perceived needs, and satisfaction with these services. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a purposeful sample of patients who visited six general practices in the Australian Capital Territory that included pharmacists in their team. The survey was informed by the literature and pre-tested. The survey was distributed to two samples: patients who had seen a pharmacist and those who had not seen a pharmacist. Of 100 responses received, 86 responses were included in the analysis: patients who had seen a pharmacist (n = 46) and patients who had not seen a pharmacist (n = 40). Almost all the patients who utilised pharmacist-led services were highly satisfied with those services. Among patients who had not seen a pharmacist, 50% were aware of the existence of general practice pharmacists. Patients who had visited the pharmacist rated higher scores for perceived needs. Patient satisfaction towards the pharmacist-led services in general practices was very high, and patients supported the expansion of these services. However, awareness of the availability of general practice pharmacist services could be improved.

Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness of Pharmacists in General Practice: A Cross-National Survey.

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.

General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists' characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training. CONCLUSION: This review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

Evaluation of General Practice Pharmacists: Study Protocol to Assess Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness.

The inclusion of pharmacists into general practices has expanded in Australia. However, there is a paucity of research examining interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness after including a pharmacist into the general practice team in primary or community care. This is a protocol for a cross-national comparative mixed-methods study to (i) investigate interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness within the general practice team after employing pharmacists in general practices in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and (ii) to compare interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice across Australia with international sites. The first objective will be addressed through a multiphase sequential explanatory mixed-method design, using surveys and semi-structured interviews. The study will recruit general practice pharmacists, general practitioners, and other health professionals from eight general practices in the ACT. Quantitative and qualitative results will be merged during interpretation to provide complementary perspectives of interprofessional collaboration. Secondly, a quantitative descriptive design will compare findings on interprofessional collaboration (professional interactions, relationship initiation, exchange characteristics, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites from Canada and the United Kingdom. The results of the study will be used to provide recommendations on how to best implement the role of general practice pharmacists across Australia.

Funding pharmacists in general practice: A feasibility study to inform the design of future economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Funding is a significant barrier to employing general practice pharmacists. OBJECTIVE(S): To explore the feasibility of determining the cost-benefit of pharmacists in Australian general practice. METHODS: Two part-time pharmacists were employed by general practices in Canberra, Australia. Diaries of the pharmacists were analysed to determine time worked and participation in income-generating activities, including Government-funded programs: Asthma Cycle of Care, Home Medicine Reviews, and Health Care Assessments. Scenarios using different practice and business models were entered into value-cost models to determine the income generated by the pharmacists relative to their salary. RESULTS: Over 19 weeks, pharmacists A and B supported 47 and 23 Asthma Cycle of Care activities, generating income to the general practice of AU$4,700 and AU$2,300, respectively. The pharmacists spent 36.4 and 24.1 hours on activities usually conducted by general practitioners (GPs), allowing additional time for GP-patient consultations. Value-cost models determined AU$0.61 - AU$1.20 income generation by pharmacists per AU$1 salary. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to determine the value-cost ratios of employing pharmacists in general practice using these methods. Future work should focus on developing a robust business model that includes health care system savings resulting from practice pharmacist interventions, determined from randomised controlled trials.

Understanding medication safety and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: a patient perspective.

Background Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease is a common inherited neuropathy where patients may be sensitive to adverse effects of certain medicines; however, information about medication safety in this group of people is limited. Objective This study aimed to investigate the experience of Australian individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in using medications, including perceived impact of drug-induced adverse effects. Secondarily, it aimed to determine whether individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease feel adequately supported to make decisions about medication safety. Setting Focus groups and interviews (face-to-face or telephone) of individuals with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in Australia. Method A mixed methods qualitative study was conducted between September 2015 and August 2016 using semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was conducted independently by two researchers using inductive coding until concept saturation was achieved. Main outcome measure Perceptions of medicines safety in people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, including barriers to making informed decisions about medication safety. Results Twenty-four adults with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease participated. Anaesthetics (18%) and pregabalin (15%) were the medications most frequently reported as impacting on Charcot-Marie-Tooth symptoms. Participants sought medication information primarily from general practitioners or neurologists. The main barriers identified by participants were a perceived poor understanding in non-specialist health professionals about Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and lack of attention to medication safety concerns in people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; this resulted in dissatisfaction about the advice provided. Many individuals who faced uncertainty in obtaining and understanding medicines information turned to internet resources, peer groups, and use of complementary and alternative medicines to self-manage Charcot-Marie-Tooth exacerbations. Conclusion Participants reported drug-related adverse effects and a difficulty in obtaining safety information about medication. This study highlights the need for improved evidence about medication safety in people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Development of evidence-based resources, increased awareness amongst health professionals about Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and a team-based care approach could facilitate shared decisions about medication use for people with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.

Analytical quality and effectiveness of point-of-care testing in community pharmacies: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests are characterised through the ability of conducting them near the patient's side without the necessity of a laboratory. They can be applied in different healthcare settings to improve patients' access to testing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and analytical quality of point-of-care tests performed in the community pharmacy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were systematically searched using a predefined search strategy. Interventional studies that reported on the effectiveness of the point-of-care tests and accuracy studies that investigated their analytical quality were included. The literature search, study selection, and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. RESULTS: In total, eleven studies were identified focusing on blood glucose, cholesterol, creatinine, uric acid, liver enzymes, international normalized ratio for anticoagulation therapy, bone mineral density for osteoporosis, forced expiratory volume for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and infection with human immunodeficiency virus. The included studies showed that point-of-care tests that were conducted and analysed in community pharmacies had satisfactory analytical quality and that the interventions applying these tests were effective overall. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies are well suited to deliver a wide range of point-of-care tests. In the future this will allow easier access to various screening and diagnostic tests for patients.

The Role of Pharmacists in General Practice in Asthma Management: A Pilot Study.

Background: Asthma is principally managed in general practice. Appropriate prescribing and medication use are essential, so general practice pharmacists appear suitable to conduct asthma management consultations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the asthma management role of a pharmacist in general practice. Methods: Analysis of an activity diary and stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify interventions in asthma management; determine whether asthma control changed following pharmacist input; and determine acceptability of asthma management review by a pharmacist in one general practice in Canberra, Australia. Results: Over 13 months, the pharmacist saw 136 individual patients. The most common activities were asthma control assessment; recommendations to adjust medication or device; counselling on correct device use; asthma action plan development and trigger avoidance. For patients with multiple consultations, the mean Asthma Control Test score improved from the initial to last visit (14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 19.3 ± 4.7, n = 23, p < 0.0001). Eight of the 19 (42%) patients moved from having poor to well-controlled asthma. Case studies and qualitative data indicated probable hospital admission avoidance and stakeholder acceptability of asthma management by a practice pharmacist. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated it is feasible, acceptable and potentially beneficial to have a general practice pharmacist involved in asthma management. Fuller evaluation is warranted.

What can pharmacists do in general practice? A pilot trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-dispensing pharmacists are being suggested as a useful addition to the workforce in general practice. The aim of this study was to describe the activities of three general practice pharmacists over six months in a pilot trial. METHOD: Three general practices integrated a part-time (15.2-16 hours per week) non-dispensing pharmacist to be employed according to their individual skillset and local workplace needs. Each general practice pharmacist maintained a daily activity diary, which was subsequently analysed. RESULTS: The general practice pharmacists' activities were categorised as quality of practice (37%), administration (34%), medication review (19%) and patient education (11%). Within the quality of practice category, most time was spent conducting clinical audits (47%). Over the course of the six months, time spent on administration decreased, while time communicating with general practitioners (GPs) on clinical issues increased. DISCUSSION: The general practice pharmacists conducted a range of predominantly clinically related activities involving their expertise in the quality use of medications. Involvement in clinical activities to support GPs increased with time working in the practice. Randomised controlled trials are required to collect clinical outcomes and determine which activities conducted by pharmacists are most beneficial to Australian patients and GPs.

Stakeholder perspectives about general practice pharmacists in the Australian Capital Territory: a qualitative pilot study.

Previous studies have found that integrating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice may improve patient safety, improve patient outcomes, deliver health system efficiencies and generate savings. However, the employment of pharmacists in general practice is not common in Australia. A naturalistic study was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory with three general practices, each employing a part-time pharmacist for 12 months. This study reports on stakeholder perspectives of the benefits, barriers and enablers for integrating pharmacists into general practice. Patients, practice staff and community pharmacists that had interacted with a practice pharmacist were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Patient questionnaire respondents (n=44) reported that a practice pharmacist was beneficial and wanted to see this continue. Practice pharmacists were also perceived beneficial by primary healthcare employees surveyed (n=42). Opinions were further explored by individual semi-structured interviews (n=20). The qualitative data explored five themes: perception of the practice pharmacist, collaboration with doctors, pharmacist roles, sustainability and community pharmacy aspects. Patients welcomed improved understanding about their medication, whereas general practice staff appreciated pharmaceutical advice about patients with chronic conditions. Participants discussed options to fund practice pharmacists longer term, which was identified as the main barrier to widespread roll out.

Dementia, medication and transitions of care.

BACKGROUND: Persons with dementia (PWD) often have complex medication regimens and are at risk of medication problems during the multiple transitions of care experienced as the condition progresses. OBJECTIVES: To explore medication processes in acute care episodes and care transitions for PWD and to make recommendations to improve practice. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by two pharmacy researchers from a focused purposive sample of fifty-one participants (carers, health professionals, Alzheimer's Australia staff) from urban and rural Australia. After written consent, the interviews were audio-recorded then transcribed verbatim for face-to-face interviews, or notes were taken during the interview if conducted by telephone. The transcripts were checked for accuracy by the pharmacy researchers. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken independently by the two researchers to reduce bias and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Themes identified were: medication reconciliation; no modified planning for care transitions; underutilization of information technology; multiple prescribers; residential aged care facilities; and medication reviews by pharmacists. Sub themes were: access to appropriate staff; identification of dementia; dose administration aids; and staff training. CONCLUSIONS: Medication management is sub-optimal for PWD during care transitions and may compromise safety. Suggested improvements included: increased involvement of pharmacists in care transitions; outreach or transitional health care professionals; modified planning for care transitions for individuals over 80 years; co-ordinated electronic records; structured communication; and staff training.

'Catching chlamydia': combining cash incentives and community pharmacy access for increased chlamydia screening, the view of young people.

In Australia and elsewhere, chlamydia screening rates for those aged between 16 and 30 years continue to be low. Innovative, age-appropriate approaches are necessary to increase chlamydia screening among this target group to prevent short- and long-term consequences of the infection such as pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. Studies have demonstrated that offering chlamydia screening in community pharmacies may be a useful adjunct to current screening services. Approximately 90% of Australians visit a pharmacy at least once a year. Chlamydia screening and education in community pharmacies with remuneration may provide another option for opportunistic testing as part of a national chlamydia screening scheme. Compensation is an accepted practice in the field of research and has been demonstrated to improve adherence to health promotion activities. In 2011, a cross-sectional study of community pharmacy-based chlamydia screening offered in conjunction with an A$10 cash incentive to participate was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory. As part of this study young people were asked about their experience of, and views about, pharmacy-based chlamydia screening. The views of consented participants were collected using the one-page questionnaire consisting of 10 closed questions and one open-ended question. Participants completed the questionnaire when they returned their urine sample and before being given the cash incentive. Overall participants were highly satisfied with the pharmacy-based chlamydia screening service. Over 60% of questionnaire respondents felt that the payment did affect their decision to have the chlamydia test, and 23% stated that it made no difference. Young people reported that pharmacy-based screening is acceptable and convenient. Accessibility and the small cash incentive played significant roles in increasing participation.

Can pharmacy assistants play a greater role in public health programs in community pharmacies? Lessons from a chlamydia screening study in Canberra, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the engagement of pharmacy assistants (PA) in public health service provision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of PA participating in a study to determine whether a cash reward, offered to consumers and pharmacy businesses, increased participation in community pharmacy-based chlamydia screening. METHODS: PA experience of the study education and training package, participant recruitment and conducting screening (providing information about chlamydia, specimen collection and handling urine samples) were evaluated using knowledge assessment, a questionnaire and focus groups. RESULTS: Twenty PA participated in the study: 15 (75%) completed all education and training components, 20 (100%) completed the questionnaire and 10 (50%) attended a focus group. PA rated all education and training components as effective (mean visual analog scale scores >8.5). Most PA (13/18, 72.2%) did not support/were unsure about continuing the program, citing the 25% repeat testing rate (presumed to relate to the cash reward) and privacy/confidentiality issues as reasons. Qualitative analysis suggested that minimizing repeat testing, improved workload management and recognition of, and remuneration for, education and training would make this model more acceptable to PA. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study support the assertion that PA can play a significant role in public health initiatives.

Topical ivermectin 0.5% lotion for treatment of head lice.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, and place in therapy of a single application of topical ivermectin 0.5% lotion for head lice treatment. DATA SOURCES: Literature was obtained by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus (January 1980 to January 2013). Abstracts were searched for the terms ivermectin AND (head lice or pediculus or pediculosis), topical ivermectin, ivermectin lotion, ivermectin AND (pharmacology OR pharmacokinetics). The New Drug Application filed with the Food and Drug Administration and the product data sheets for ivermectin were obtained. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language articles retrieved from the search were evaluated for relevance to the objective. DATA SYNTHESIS: The recommended first-line head lice treatments in the United States are permethrin 1% or pyrethrins, with malathion 0.5% lotion used as a second-line treatment. Significantly more of the 289 head lice-infested participants using topical ivermectin 0.5% lotion were lice-free at day 15 when compared with vehicle control (73.8% vs 17.6%; P < .001) in 2 studies. Although this rate is lower than other third-line treatments (eg, spinosad 0.9% or benzyl alcohol 5%), topical ivermectin 0.5% lotion is well tolerated (pruritus, the most common adverse event, 0.9%) and requires only a single application. CONCLUSIONS: Topical ivermectin 0.5% lotion kills head lice by increasing chloride in muscle cells, causing hyperpolarization and paralysis. Only 1 application is required; when the treated eggs hatch, the lice are not viable because they cannot feed as a result of pharyngeal muscle paralysis. Minimal systemic absorption occurs following topical application. Studies have demonstrated that topical ivermectin 0.5% is a safe and efficacious treatment for head lice. Although it has no documented resistance, there is limited clinical experience, it requires a prescription, and it is expensive. Therefore it should be reserved as a third-line treatment for head lice in the United States.