Search

The social identity approach was used to explore the inter-professional relations between nurse prescribers, pharmacist prescribers and general practitioners (GPs) in primary care in the United Kingdom. We investigated their social identities as prescribers, the influence of social structure in practice settings and the implications for further development of nurse and pharmacist prescribing. Interviews were conducted with 21 GPs, nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers in primary care from the south of England. Five themes emerged, including the ambiguous social identity of some nurse and pharmacist prescribers (‘a no man’s land’), constraining social structures (‘the doctor is king’), the content of GPs’ social identity (‘subtle prescribing’), the content of nurse and pharmacists’ social identity (‘more than just competent’) and context (‘engaging with each other’s identities’). At some GP practices, there was a willingness to engage with the different social identities and reframe them within the organisational context of a GP surgery. At these sites, where social identities were respected and supported, the social identity approach offered insight into how the resulting teamwork could lead to a shared practice identity focused on multi-disciplinary working. This research provides evidence of how professional and organisational identities can be enhanced and supported. Further, there is the potential for an intervention using the social identity approach to improve patient care.

Objectives: To investigate the attitudes and experiences of community pharmacists providing medicines-use review (MUR) and post-discharge medicines-use review (PD-MUR) services. Methods: An online survey for community pharmacists who had experience providing the MUR service. Key findings: In total, 495 community pharmacists responded to the survey. A total of 89% (n = 382) of community pharmacists wanted to receive the patient's full discharge summary and 79% (n = 363) preferred electronic communication. Community pharmacists thought they could build trusted relationships with patients and felt that patients were willing to discuss post-discharge medicines-related issues with them. Less experienced pharmacists conducted more MURs than more experienced pharmacists (P = 0.004), and pharmacists working in large multiples (>50 pharmacies) conducted more MURs than those working in independent pharmacies (<5 pharmacies) (P = 0.001). Community pharmacists working in independent pharmacies conducted more PD-MURs than those working in large multiples (P = 0.004). Community pharmacists working in rural areas also thought they were best placed to provide PD-MURs while those working in urban areas thought that practice pharmacists were best suited to provide this service (P = 0.007). Conclusions: Community pharmacists believe they have a vital role in supporting patients after hospital discharge. They can build long-lasting, trusted relationships with patients and patients are willing to discuss medication issues with them. By providing community pharmacists in all locations with timely access to accurate discharge information, they could use their knowledge and skills to better support patients after hospital discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01142.x Byline: Marjorie C. Weiss (1), Jane Sutton (1) Keywords: prescribing; qualitative research; patient safety; pharmacists Abstract: Abstract This paper investigates the potential threat to medical dominance posed by the addition of pharmacists as prescribers in the UK. It explores the role of prescribing as an indicator of professional power, the legitimacy and status of new pharmacist prescribers and the forces influencing professional jurisdictional claims over the task of prescribing. It draws upon 23 interviews with pharmacist supplementary prescribers. Data suggest that the legitimacy of pharmacists as prescribers, as experienced in the workplace, has been aided by: (1) blurred definitions of prescribing; (2) the emphasis on new prescribers' competence urging pharmacist prescribers to limit their areas of clinical practice; and (3) a team approach to patient management. Competence, self-limitation on practice and the benefits of team working as part of the ideology of patient safety were thus an important influence on pharmacists' jurisdictional claim over prescribing. While pharmacists have successfully negotiated a role for themselves as prescribers, medicine has retained its high status, relative to other health professionals and with patients; it controls the knowledge base relevant for prescribing practice and has managed to develop an 'overseer' role over the process of prescribing. Prescribing, as an indicator of medicine's autonomy of control over their work and professional status, has changed. Yet the extent to which new prescribers have been able to threaten the professional dominance of medicine is debatable. Author Affiliation: (1)Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath Article note: Address for correspondence: Marjorie C. Weiss, Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, e-mail: m.weiss@bath.ac.uk

Background In the United Kingdom, pharmaceutical services can be delivered by both community pharmacies ( CPs) and dispensing doctor practices ( DPs). Both must adhere to minimum standards set out in NHS regulations; however, no common framework exists to guide quality improvement. Previous phases of this research had developed a set of characteristics indicative of good pharmaceutical service provision. Objective To ask key stakeholders to confirm, and rank the importance of, a set of characteristics of good pharmaceutical service provision. Methods A two-round Delphi-type survey was conducted in south-west England and was sent to participants representing three stakeholder groups: DPs, CPs and patients/lay members. Participants were asked to confirm, and rank, the importance of these characteristics as representing good quality pharmaceutical services. Key Findings Thirty people were sent the first round survey; 22 participants completed both rounds. Median ratings for the 23 characteristics showed that all were seen to represent important aspects of pharmaceutical service provision. Participants' comments highlighted potential problems with the practicality of the characteristics. Characteristics relating to patient safety were deemed to be the most important and those relating to public health the least important. Conclusions A set of 23 characteristics for providing good pharmaceutical services in CPs and DPs was developed and attained approval from a sample of stakeholders. With further testing and wider discussion, it is hoped that the characteristics will form the basis of a quality improvement tool for CPs and DPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimsThis research sought (a) to investigate the similarities and differences in how pharmaceutical services are provided by community pharmacies (CPs) and dispensing doctor practices (DPs) and (b) to identify the issues relevant to determining the quality of pharmaceutical services in these settings.BackgroundUK pharmaceutical services, including dispensing prescriptions and public health advice, can be provided from both (CP) and, in rural areas, (DP). While there is much similarity between CPs and DPs in the types of services provided, there is also the potential for variation in service quality across settings.MethodsA postal questionnaire of DPs and CPs in South West England was conducted to provide a descriptive overview of pharmaceutical services across the settings. A subsection of questionnaire respondent sites were selected to take part in case studies, which involved documentary analyses, observation and staff interviews.FindingsSurvey response was 39% for CPs (52/134) and 48% (31/64) for DPs. There were three CP and four DP case study sites, with 17 staff interviews. More pharmacies than practices were open at the weekend and they had more staff trained above NVQ level 2. Both doctors and pharmacists saw themselves as medicines experts, as being accessible and having good relationships with patients. Workplace practices and organisational ethos varied both within and across settings, with good practice observed in both. Overall, CPs and DPs have much in common. Workplace culture and an evidence-based approach to checking prescriptions and error reporting need to be considered in future assessments of service quality. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

AimThe aims of this study were twofold: (a) to explore whether specific components of shared decision making were present in consultations involving nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and general practitioners (GPs) and (b) to relate these to self-reported patient outcomes including satisfaction, adherence and patient perceptions of practitioner empathy.BackgroundThere are a range of ways for defining and measuring the process of concordance, or shared decision making as it relates to decisions about medicines. As a result, demonstrating a convincing link between shared decision making and patient benefit is challenging. In the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists can now take on a prescribing role, engaging in shared decision making. Given the different professional backgrounds of GPs, NPs and PPs, this study sought to explore the process of shared decision making across these three prescriber groups.MethodsAnalysis of audio-recordings of consultations in primary care in South England between patients and GPs, NPs and PPs. Analysis of patient questionnaires completed post consultation.FindingsA total of 532 consultations were audio-recorded with 20 GPs, 19 NPs and 12 PPs. Prescribing decisions occurred in 421 (79%). Patients were given treatment options in 21% (102/482) of decisions, the prescriber elicited the patient’s treatment preference in 18% (88/482) and the patient expressed a treatment preference in 24% (118/482) of decisions. PPs were more likely to ask for the patient’s preference about their treatment regimen (χ2=6.6, P=0.036, Cramer’s V=0.12) than either NPs or GPs. Of the 275 patient questionnaires, 192(70%) could be matched with a prescribing decision. NP patients had higher satisfaction levels than patients of GPs or PPs. More time describing treatment options was associated with increased satisfaction, adherence and greater perceived practitioner empathy. While defining, measuring and enabling the process of shared decision making remains challenging, it may have patient benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the applied and conceptual relationship between two measures of shared decision making using the OPTION instrument developed in Wales and the Informed Decision Making instrument developed in Seattle, USA using audio-taped consultation data from a UK general practice population. Methods: Twelve general practitioners were recruited from 6 general practices in the southwest of England. One hundred twenty-three GP-patient consultations were audio-recorded. Audiotapes were sent off to, and rated by, respective experts in the use of the OPTION and the Informed Decision Making instruments. Results: Compared to earlier work using the Informed Decision Making tool, consultations in this sample were shorter, had fewer decisions and tended to have a greater number of elements present. Similar to previous research using the OPTION, values using the OPTION instrument were low with two items, giving the patient opportunities to ask questions and checking patient understanding, exhibiting the most variability. Using a ‘key’ decision in each consultation as the basis for comparison, the Informed Decision Making score was not related to the overall OPTION score (Spearman''s rho=0.14, p =0.13). Both instruments also predicted different ‘best’ and ‘worst’ doctors. Using a Bland–Altman plot for assessing agreement, the mean difference between the two measures was 1.11 (CI 0.66–1.56) and the limits of agreement were −3.94 to 6.16. There were several elements between the two instruments that appeared conceptually similar and correlations for these were generally higher. These were: discussing alternatives or options (Spearman''s rho=0.35, p =0.0001), discussion of the patient''s role in decision making (Spearman''s rho=0.23, p =0.012), discussion of the pros/cons of the alternatives (Spearman''s rho=0.20, p =0.024) and assessment of the patient''s understanding (Spearman''s rho=0.19, p =0.03). Conclusion: Measures of shared decision making are helpful in identifying those shared decision making skills which may be problematic or difficult to integrate into practice and provide a tool by which the development of skills can be assessed over time. Research may implicitly place undue value on those aspects of shared decision making which are most easily measured. Practice implications: Shared decision making tools are a useful way of capturing the presence or absence of specific shared decision making skills and changes in skills acquisition over time. However there may be limits in the extent to which the concept of shared decision making can be measured and that more easily measured skills will be emphasised to the detriment of other important shared decision making skills. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study adopted a qualitative approach to explore patients’ views on the usefulness of a decision analytic decision aid (DA). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients who had been recruited for a factorial randomised controlled trial of two decision aids. Issues investigated included respondents’ attitudes to information, their views on the nature of their relationship with their general practitioner (GP) (paternalistic, shared or consumerist), the ease of use and potential wider application of the computerised decision aid and its influence upon their decision-making about whether or not to begin anti-hypertensive treatment. Views on the decision aid were favourable. For the majority, the decision aid appeared to confirm and/or clarify their stated preferences towards medicine-taking. Occasionally it could provoke a major shift in a respondent’s attitude to medicine-taking, while in a few it had no discernible effect. While views on the decision aid were favourable, it was difficult to determine whether this was due to the individualised cardiovascular risk information it provided or the decision analytic process itself. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: A United Kingdom Department of Health directive (EL[94]72) asked Health Authorities to manage the entry of new drugs into practice. There seem to be costs associated with the decision-making process of managed entry, but no clear evidence of benefit to patient populations. The objective of this study was to assess the potential costs and outcomes of different models of managed entry, using the example of donepezil in the North West Health Region of the U.K. National Health Service. This is a preliminary study designed to identify the key pieces of information required to evaluate the value of managed entry.Methods: Decision analytic models of three Health Authorities' approaches to manage the entry of donepezil were used to estimate the expected costs and effectiveness of the process. Resource use data were obtained from published sources and the relevant Health Authority. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to determine the robustness of the results.Results: The process of managed entry of donepezil was associated with higher expected costs and higher expected outcome than no managed entry. The 95% confidence intervals for the net expected costs and net expected outcomes were relatively narrow and did not cross zero, which suggests a statistical difference between managed entry and no managed entry for donepezil. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for managed entry of donepezil indicate that, compared with no managed entry, there were substantial differences between the different models used in the three study sites. The expected cost per unit of cognitive function gained was between 18,000 pounds sterling in study site 001 to 28,000 pounds sterling in study site 010. The expected cost per person with a clinically significant improvement was between 140,000 pounds sterling and 230,000 pounds sterling. The expected cost per QALY ranged from 470,000 pounds sterling to 19.3 million pounds sterling.Conclusions: Managed entry does not appear to be a worthwhile mechanism to introduce drugs into practice. However, poor accessibility and availability of data means that the results are highly uncertain. The lack of data presents serious obstacles for both researchers and policy makers wishing to develop evidence-based policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Thailand, antibiotics are available lawfully from community pharmacies without a prescription. Inappropriate supply of antibiotics from Thai community pharmacies to the public for common, self-limiting diseases has been reported. The study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of antibiotics selected by community pharmacists in Thailand in response to vignettes. A cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists across Thailand was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire including nine case vignettes with three conditions, namely upper respiratory infections (URIs), acute diarrhoea and simple wounds. A total of 208 questionnaires were completed and analysed (20.8% response rate). In response to vignettes relating to URIs, 50.8% of pharmacist recommendations were not in accordance with antibiotic guidelines. Inappropriate recommendations for diarrhoea and wound cases were 20.8% and 16.7%, respectively. A higher proportion of younger pharmacists, those with less experience, Pharm. D. graduate pharmacists, employee pharmacists and those pharmacists who worked in a chain pharmacy were more likely to recommend appropriate antibiotic treatment in response to the vignettes (p < 0.05). These findings will be useful to promote educational interventions for community pharmacists regarding common infectious disease management in order to improve appropriate antibiotic use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]