Integration of pharmacist independent prescribers into general practice: a mixed-methods study of pharmacists' and patients' views.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, the National Health Service (NHS) has funded pharmacists to work in general practice (GP practice) to ease workload pressures. This requires pharmacists to work in new roles and be integrated effectively in GPs. Independent prescribing is a key part of the GP pharmacist role, but little is known about pharmacists' integration into GP practice as well as patients' perceptions and experiences of the care provided by GP pharmacists. This study aims to explore the perceptions of pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs) about their integration into GP practice and gain insight into patients' perceptions about the care provided to them by pharmacists. METHODS: A mixed-methods study comprising semi-structured interviews with PIPs (n = 13) followed by questionnaire-based assessment of patients' (n = 77) evaluation of pharmacists' care was conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews and open comments of the survey were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Pharmacist independent prescribers reported undertaking a range of patient-facing and non-clinical roles. Lack of understanding about PIPs' clinical role and working beyond their clinical area of competence were some of the barriers to their integration into GP practice. Most patients were satisfied with the consultations they received from pharmacists and reported confidence in the pharmacist's recommendations about their health conditions. However, a few patients (14%) felt they would still need to consult a general practitioner after their appointment and 11% were not sure if a further consultation was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist independent prescribers provide a range of clinical services for the management of long-term conditions which appear to be recognised by patients. However, there is a need to address the barriers to PIPs' integration into GP practice to optimise their skill-mix and patient-centred care.

Depression during first episode psychosis and subsequent suicide risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests first episode psychosis (FEP) is associated with suicide, and the influence of depression on suicidal behaviour in cross sectional studies is clear. However the influence of depression during FEP on longer-term mortality is not certain. Existing evidence was synthesised to understand the influence of depressive symptoms during FEP on subsequent suicidal behaviour. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and NICE Evidence were searched from inception to Jan 25, 2017. Longitudinal observational studies assessing the relationship between depressive symptoms during FEP with a measure of s at a specified follow-up time were included. Summary estimates were extracted. The Downs and Black Instrument was used to appraise study quality. Odds ratio (OR) of suicidal behaviour were calculated using random effects meta-analyses. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017055881). RESULTS: Of 4210 articles found, 23 fulfilled eligibility criteria. 13 were included in meta-analysis (n=3002). 428 participants demonstrated suicidal behaviour in the study periods. Odds of suicidal behaviour during follow-up were significantly higher among patients with depressive symptoms during FEP compared to those without (OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.21; I2=50.0%, p=0.02). Meta-regression demonstrated no evidence of influence of length of follow-up on results. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms during FEP are associated with increased longer-term risk of suicidal behaviour. This association should be acknowledged during early management planning. Large-scale clinical trials are needed to identify efficacious management of depression during FEP.

Influence of ethnicity on acceptability of method of blood pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory and/or home monitoring are recommended in the UK and the US for the diagnosis of hypertension but little is known about their acceptability. AIM: To determine the acceptability of different methods of measuring blood pressure to people from different minority ethnic groups. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study with focus groups in primary care in the West Midlands. METHOD: People of different ethnicities with and without hypertension were assessed for acceptability of clinic, home, and ambulatory blood pressure measurement using completion rate, questionnaire, and focus groups. RESULTS: A total of 770 participants were included, who were white British (n = 300), South Asian (n = 241), and African Caribbean (n = 229). White British participants had significantly higher successful completion rates across all monitoring modalities compared with the other ethnic groups, especially for ambulatory monitoring: white British (n = 277, 92% [95% confidence interval [CI] = 89% to 95%]) versus South Asian (n = 171, 71% [95% CI = 65% to 76%], P<0.001) and African Caribbean (n = 188, 82% [95% CI = 77% to 87%], P<0.001), respectively. There were significantly lower acceptability scores for minority ethnic participants across all monitoring methods compared with white British participants. Focus group results highlighted self-monitoring as most acceptable and ambulatory monitoring least acceptable without consistent differences by ethnicity. Clinic monitoring was seen as inconvenient and anxiety provoking but with the advantage of immediate professional input. CONCLUSION: Reduced acceptability and completion rates among minority ethnic groups raise important questions for the implementation and interpretation of blood pressure monitoring. Selection of method of blood pressure monitoring should take into account clinical need, patient preference, and potential cultural barriers to monitoring.

Cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in hypertensive patients over 70 years with suboptimal control and established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk diseases (TASMIN-SR).

BACKGROUND: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management. RESULTS: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year. CONCLUSION: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.