Health advocacy: A gulf between instruction and practice.

BACKGROUND: Systematic ways to teach health advocacy, an educational outcome for pharmacy graduates, is lacking. We developed a workshop to facilitate understanding and application of a novel structured framework for health advocacy and explored how pharmacy students enacted opportunities for health advocacy during subsequent outpatient experiential training. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A two-hour workshop was introduced for year 2 students in 2019. Its content was organized around a health advocacy framework. With patient and faculty facilitators, students worked through examples characterized into the framework's four quadrants: 1) shared advocacy "with patients" at the individual- or 2) systems-level and 3) directed advocacy "for patients" at the individual-or 4) systems-level. We then conducted a longitudinal diary study asking pharmacy students (N = 23) to reflect on opportunities to practice health advocacy skills in community pharmacy practice. A systematic, multi-coder reflexive thematic analysis of diary entries was employed. FINDINGS: Pharmacy students did not express a fulsome view of patient health advocacy and mischaracterized self-reported practice examples into inappropriate categories of the health advocacy framework. Most overemphasized usual pharmacist care as acts of health advocacy. No systems-level activities were undertaken, although isolated episodes of shared advocacy with patients were identified. SUMMARY: Lasting impacts of a health advocacy workshop in our pharmacy curriculum were not widely apparent. While longer training periods in community pharmacy practice may yield more opportunities to develop and enact this role, gaps in student conceptualization of health advocacy and inabilities to practically observe and exercise system-level advocacy are ultimately problematic for patient care.

Switching Topical Diclofenac from Higher to Lower Strength: Financial and Clinical Evaluation.

Background: In February 2020, the Fraser Health Authority in British Columbia introduced an automatic therapeutic interchange policy, whereby orders for any strength of topical diclofenac would be automatically interchanged to the commercially available diclofenac 2.32% gel for twice-daily administration. The new policy was intended mainly as a cost-saving measure but had the potential for clinical impacts that needed to be considered. Objectives: To evaluate the financial and clinical impact of the automatic therapeutic interchange policy for topical diclofenac. Methods: A financial evaluation and a clinical evaluation were conducted. Expenditures for topical diclofenac before and after implementation of the automatic therapeutic interchange policy were compared. To obtain information about the clinical impact of the interchange, a retrospective chart review was conducted at long-term care sites. The primary outcome was a composite of 7 components that could indicate worsening of pain in 3 prespecified scenarios. Results: The financial evaluation showed that the interchange could potentially save the health authority more than $200 000 over 12 months. The clinical evaluation showed that 25%-48% of patients met the primary outcome of worsening pain (analyzed according to 3 different scenarios) after the switch to lower-strength diclofenac, with increases in use of as-needed topical diclofenac and other analgesics being the main indicators of worsening pain. Conclusions: An automatic therapeutic interchange policy that switched orders for higher strengths of diclofenac to the 2.32% concentration resulted in large financial savings and, in most cases (52%-75% of patients), did not appear to affect pain control. Prospective studies comparing the clinical impact of higher- and lower-strength topical diclofenac products are warranted.

Contexte: En février 2020, la Fraser Health Authority en Colombie-Britannique a introduit une politique d'échange thérapeutique automatique, selon laquelle les commandes de diclofénac topique (n'importe quelle concentration) seraient automatiquement échangées contre du diclofénac à 2,32 % (formule en gel) disponible dans le commerce pour une administration deux fois par jour. La nouvelle politique visait principalement à réduire les coûts, mais pouvait avoir une incidence clinique, qui devait être prise en compte. Objectifs: Évaluer l'impact financier et clinique de la politique d'échange thérapeutique automatique pour le diclofénac topique. Méthodes: Une évaluation financière et une évaluation clinique ont été réalisées. Les dépenses liées au diclofénac topique avant et après la mise en œuvre de la politique d'échange thérapeutique automatique ont été comparées. Pour obtenir des informations sur l'incidence clinique de l'échange, un examen rétrospectif des dossiers a été réalisé dans les sites de soins de longue durée. Le résultat principal était un composite de 7 éléments pouvant indiquer une aggravation de la douleur dans 3 scénarios prédéfinis. Résultats: L'évaluation financière a montré que l'échange pourrait potentiellement permettre à l'autorité sanitaire d'économiser plus de 200 000 $ sur 12 mois. L'évaluation clinique a quant à elle démontré que 25 à 48 % des patients ont atteint le principal résultat d'aggravation de la douleur (analysé selon 3 scénarios différents) après le passage au diclofénac à plus faible concentration. L'augmentation de l'utilisation au besoin de diclofénac topique et d'autres analgésiques constituait le principal indicateur d'aggravation de la douleur. Conclusions: Une politique d'échange thérapeutique automatique qui remplaçait les ordonnances de concentrations plus élevées de diclofénac par une concentration de 2,32 % a permis de réaliser d'importantes économies financières et, dans la plupart des cas (52 à 75 % des patients), cet échange ne semble pas avoir eu d'effet sur le contrôle de la douleur. Des études prospectives comparant l'incidence clinique des produits topiques à base de diclofénac à concentration plus élevée et plus faible sont justifiées.

Pharmacy Students Practicing Health Advocate Competency Roles in Workplace-Based Training.

OBJECTIVE: Health advocacy competency roles are found in the educational outcomes of many health disciplines, yet their development is neglected in the professional curriculum and clinical learning environment. We explored how pharmacy students conceptualize health advocacy through their practice in workplace-based learning and any feedback they receive. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal diary study of Canadian pharmacy students completing Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences in hospital and community practices in their graduating year. At pre-determined intervals, 25 students recorded workplace-based activities they recognized as health advocacy and any feedback they received from supervisors, patients, or other staff. Written diary data from 180 records were analyzed by 5 researchers according to inductive content analysis steps and principles. RESULTS: Pharmacy student records reflecting health advocacy roles were organized into 5 categories including, (1) disease prevention; (2) health promotion; (3) seamless care; (4) usual pharmacist care; and (5) professional advocacy. Although many activities were consistent with current competency role descriptions, they do not reflect educational outcomes associated with patient- or systems-level support necessary to address socio-political determinants of health. Although Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience in training evaluation reports included scores for items related to health advocacy competency, few students confirmed receiving specific written or verbal feedback. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students construct health advocacy roles in workplace-based training through biomedical-oriented practices with little direct input offered by supervisors. Pharmacy educational outcomes require contemporary updates to health advocacy competency descriptions which offer examples for practical enactment at system-level and recommendations for feedback and assessment.