Search

While studies have reported pharmacists' perspectives of research involvement, almost all are limited by sector, have little focus on research translation and have not incorporated behavior change theory. The objective of this research was to determine pharmacists' views and experiences of research conduct, dissemination and translation. This was an electronic cross-sectional survey of pharmacists across six Scottish health board areas. Survey items were: demographics; research activities (e.g. conduct, dissemination) in the last two years; research interests, experience and confidence in research tasks (e.g. proposal writing, data collection); and Likert statements on research conduct, dissemination and the translation of research findings into practice. Conduct/dissemination and translation items were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and principal component analysis (PCA) of TDF items. Following determination of internal consistency, scores for each component were calculated. The response rate was 19.4% (136/701), with 17 (12.5%) currently involved in research. Responses were more positive for interest in research than experience or confidence. PCA of research conduct/dissemination items identified three internally-reliable components of support/opportunities, motivation/outcomes, and roles/characteristics. Component scores for support/opportunities to participate in research were most negative. PCA of translation items identified three internally-reliable components of current practices/abilities, consequences and support. Scores for all three components were positive, being most positive for consequences of research translation. Those in secondary care, with a postgraduate qualification and prescription responsibilities scored higher for interest, experience, confidence and for most components (p < 0.05). In conclusion, a minority of pharmacists are involved in research conduct/dissemination and these are more likely to be highly-qualified individuals, based in secondary care. Given the need to develop and evaluate new models of pharmaceutical care, involvement should be extended to all practice settings. Study findings could be used to develop behavior change interventions targeting individuals and organizations.

Background In Scotland, there has been significant investment in pharmacy teams in general medical practices over recent years, aligned to current government policy. Objectives To characterize the national pharmacy workforce including activities undertaken, perceived competence and confidence, as well as perception of integration of the intervention. Methods A cross-sectional survey of all pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in general practices. Survey items were demographics, activities undertaken and experiences. The NoMAD tool (Improving the Normalization of Complex Interventions) was included as a measure of perspectives of implementation. Post-piloting, a questionnaire link was sent to all pharmacists (n = 471) and pharmacy technicians (n = 112). A total NoMAD score was obtained by assigning 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to each item. Results Responses were received from 393 (83.4%) pharmacists and 101 (91.8%) pharmacy technicians. Three quarters of pharmacists (74.6%) and pharmacy technicians (73.3%) had been qualified for over 10 years. Two-thirds of pharmacists (68.4%) were independent prescribers, with three quarters (72.3%) currently prescribing. Respondents worked in a median of two practices and were providing a range of activities including medication/polypharmacy reviews, medicines reconciliation, prescribing efficiencies and training. Respondents reported high levels of competence and confidence (median 8, scale 0–10 highest). Median NoMAD total score (scale 20–100 highest, Cronbach’s alpha 0.89) was 80 for pharmacists and 75 for pharmacy technicians, P ≤ 0.001. Conclusions The general practice pharmacy workforce in Scotland is experienced, well-qualified and integrated within general practices, delivering a range of activities. These findings have implications for workforce planning and future education and training.

© 2017 Stewart et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background: Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. Methods: Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. Results: Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. Conclusion: Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.