Overcoming Barriers in Nurse-Pharmacist Collaborations on Wards - Qualitative Expert Interviews with Nurses and Pharmacists.

Purpose: Interprofessional collaboration in healthcare is an essential element in promoting patient safety. However, little research is available on the collaboration between nurses and pharmacists. To optimize processes, mutual understanding is needed, which can be gained by examining the perspectives of those collaborating professional groups. We aimed to identify barriers to the interprofessional collaboration of nurses and pharmacists as well as preconditions and solution strategies to devise approaches for optimizing teamwork in inpatient settings. Methods: We recruited pairs of collaborating nurses and pharmacists from different hospitals in German-speaking countries and conducted qualitative expert interviews by phone with each of them individually. Transcribed interviews were assessed using qualitative content analysis. Results: We conducted 12 interviews each with the collaborating nurses and pharmacists. The most frequently mentioned barriers to optimal collaboration were "skepticism due to perception as controller" (reported mainly by pharmacists), "organizational implementation", and "limited (possibilities of) presence" (reported by both professional groups). A solution strategy proposed to overcome such barriers was "explaining added value". This added value was found in "clinical-pharmaceutical activities as complement by additional perspective" and "reducing workload in tasks distant from the patient". Conclusion: Nurses, pharmacists and hospital management should recognize the added value of intensifying their collaboration regarding patient-related services. A combination of logistical and clinical-pharmaceutical activities should be established at the level of drug application since interviewees endorsed collaboration. A stepwise process must be anticipated to address existing barriers, including some redefinition of professional roles.

Assessment of Patients' Views on Drug Benefits and Risks: An Interview Study with Cardiovascular Patients.

Better and balanced information strategies supporting cardiovascular patients' adherence are required. Cardiovascular drugs have outstanding morbidity and mortality benefits. This can be counteracted by patients' perceptions of risks. Drug information should help the patient but not fuel unwarranted fears. We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients admitted to a cardiology ward. We evaluated (i) the patients' general benefit-risk estimation of their pharmacotherapy; (ii) views on benefits; (iii) views on risks; and (iv) information sources. Additionally, we assessed aspects of anxiety and depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). (i) 67 patients (66%) rated expected drug benefits higher than potential risks. (ii) 72% of benefits motivated the patients to take their medication as prescribed. Patients more frequently mentioned surrogate markers as benefits than clinical benefits (p < 0.001). (iii) 56% of risks mentioned were perceived as bothersome and 35% as concerning. Risks were more often perceived as bothersome and concerning by patients with higher PHQ-4 scores (p=0.016). (iv) Physicians were the most frequent information source of benefits (92% of patients) and risks (45%), and pharmacy staff for 27% and 14%, respectively. Laymen or media served as sources of information on benefits in 39%, for risks in 40%, and package leaflets in 26% and 36%. 42% of the patients would like to receive more information on benefits versus 27% on risks. Our results suggest that knowledge of benefits motivates patients to take their drugs as prescribed. There is already good information on surrogate markers for process control with active patient involvement. However, a lack of knowledge still exists in relation to clinical benefits. Regarding risks, it has been shown that patients with higher PHQ-4 scores are more likely to be bothered or concerned. Both emphases on clinical benefits and individualization depending on PHQ-4 scores may be valuable resources for patient counseling to support adherence.

Developing a Mobile Health Application to Communicate Adverse Drug Reactions - Preconditions, Assessment of Possible Functionalities and Barriers for Patients and Their General Practitioners.

Purpose: Mobile health (mHealth) applications offer structured and timely communication between patients and general practitioners (GPs) about adverse drug reactions (ADR). Preconditions, functionalities and barriers should be studied to ensure safe implementation. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire survey addressing (i) preconditions, (ii) users' assessment of functionalities and (iii) barriers to mHealth managing ADR communication. Results: A total of 480 patients and 31 GPs completed the survey. (i) A total of 269 (56%) patients and 13 (42%) GPs were willing to use mHealth for ADR communication. Willingness was negatively correlated with age for both patients (r = -0.231; p < 0.001) and GPs (r = -0.558; p = 0.002). (ii) Most useful functionalities mentioned by patients (>60%) included "Rapid feedback on urgency of face-to-face consultations." GPs valued information on "Patient's difficulties in medication administration." (iii) In free-text answers, the barrier reported most frequently by patients was "preferred personal GP contact" (6%), whereas GPs claimed, "uncomplicated use with low expenditure of time and personnel" (19%). Conclusion: Older patients and GPs mainly show reservations about mHealth for ADR communication but recognize possible benefits. mHealth implementation should avoid a negative effect on GPs' time budgets; the primary goal should not be to reduce the number of GP-patient contacts but to optimize them.