Search

Background: During conversations about medication switches, pharmacy staff often deliver a message to patients that may lead to negative emotions. In these situations, clear and patient-centered communication is important. Aim: To gain insight into pharmacy technician-patient experiences regarding the communication during medication switching encounters, and in specific to map the needs and preferences of patients and whether pharmacy technicians (PTs) meet these. Method: PTs were invited to fill in a questionnaire via the Dutch Panel on practical research for Pharmacy Employees. Online questionnaires were distributed to adult chronic mediation users in two patient panels. Questionnaires contained questions on how PTs and patients experience the medication switch conversations at the moment (i.e. type of information patients need/receive, timing of information, channel, communication style), and whether the needs and preferences of patients are met. Results: In total, 138 PTs and 4679 patients responded. PTs indicated that they regularly struggle with these conversations due to emotional or negative responses of patients. Most patients expressed the need for information about why the medication switch took place (68%) and about the (same) effect of the medication (61%), while fewer patients currently receive this information (21% and 39%, respectively). Patients also indicated they need verbal information during pick-up/delivery (45%), written information beforehand (29%) and during pick-up/delivery (25%), while patients more often receive verbal information during pick-up (58%), and less frequently receive written information beforehand (6%) and during pick-up/delivery (18%). Conclusion: Communication during medication switch conversations generally goes well. However, there is a difference between what PTs claim they do and what patients experience, e.g. space for questions and patients' satisfaction about this aspect. Dealing with patient emotions is also difficult for PTs. Patients emphasize they need more information than they currently receive, preferably before switching. Matching these needs and preferences can improve patient-centered communication.

Background: Pharmacists can contribute to fall prevention, by offering services such as fall risk screenings, counselling, and medication reviews. Patient acceptance of the role of pharmacists in fall prevention is crucial. Objective(s): The aim of this study was to explore patients' experience with a community pharmacy fall prevention service. Methods: Interviews were conducted with patients one month after they participated in a pharmacy fall prevention service, in the Netherlands. Patient inclusion criteria for the service were: age ≥ 70 years, use of ≥5 drugs including ≥1 fall risk-increasing drug. The service included a fall risk screening followed by counselling and a medication review. The semi-structured interview guide was based on the consolidated framework for implementation research and included the following topics: outcomes, patient's motivation, and contact with the pharmacy technician. Results: Of the 91 participants of the fall prevention service, 87 patients were interviewed with a median age of 78.0 years (first quartile [Q1] – third quartile [Q3]: 74.0–84.75) and 46.3% were female. Many patients expressed positive feedback about receiving a medication review. Most patients whose medication was deprescribed expressed to be positive about this. Others were reassured about the appropriateness of their medication use. Patients reported that the service enhanced their awareness about fall prevention. Only a few patients were motivated to adapt their lifestyle. Patients appreciated the attention and contact. Conclusions: Patients see a potential benefit for a community pharmacy falls prevention service, including a medication review. Patient education appeared to enhance their fall risk awareness.

Background: The causes of falls are often multifactorial. The prevention of falls benefits from a multidisciplinary approach. As people who fall are generally older and users of polypharmacy who frequently visit pharmacies, pharmacists may contribute to fall prevention. Objective(s): This study aims to explore the perceptions of primary care providers on multidisciplinary collaboration in fall prevention especially with pharmacists. Methods: Two focus groups were held with each of the following health disciplines: physiotherapists, home care nurses, and practice nurses. A topic list was developed based on the capability opportunity motivation – behaviour (COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were collected in the Netherlands between March and June 2021. Results: Six online focus groups were held with 17 physiotherapists, 14 home care nurses, and 15 practice nurses. Participants reported to collaborate multidisciplinary to prevent falls, but they had very limited collaboration with community pharmacists regarding fall prevention. Participants had limited knowledge on drugs that increase the risk of falls. This contributed to their low awareness of the potential role of pharmacists in fall prevention. Other reasons for poor collaboration in fall prevention were lack of agreements with pharmacists, limited coordination and communication. Participants were open to more collaboration with pharmacists and believed this could potentially improve patient outcomes. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary agreements among health care providers, including community pharmacists, about referral criteria, roles and responsibilities, communication and coordination, could stimulate further collaboration in fall prevention.

Background: Pharmacists and pharmacy assistants can support consumers by identifying minor ailments and providing evidence-based advice about treatment options. In the Netherlands, advice is based on national minor ailment guidelines and structured WWHAM questions (Who, What, How long, Action, Medication). Objectives: To study whether pharmacy assistants provide guideline-compliant advice for allergic rhinitis based on WWHAM and condition-specific questions (When and Familiarity) and their association with appropriate self-care advice. Methods: A retrospective study of the assessments of simulated patient (SP) visits regarding one condition- and two symptom-based cases of allergic rhinitis in Dutch community pharmacies. Pharmacies that participated in 2014, 2016 and 2018 were selected. SPs documented their observations of the problem analysis, dispensing and client interaction on a standardized scoresheet. Dispensing of an oral antihistamine according to the guideline recommendation was considered as the correct outcome. Chi-square tests were used to analyze differences in scores for problem analysis of pharmacies with correct and incorrect advice provision in 2014 and 2018. Predictors for correct outcome were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Data from 673 pharmacies were available for all three years. In 2014 and 2018, problems were presented as a symptom (running nose), and 41.2% and 21.1% of pharmacies dispensed an antihistamine. For the condition-based problem (allergy) in 2016, 96.0% of participating pharmacies dispensed an antihistamine. Both in 2014 and 2018, each additional problem analysis question increased the odds ratio of providing correct advice. Questions asked about ‘hay fever symptoms’, ‘medication’, ‘when symptoms occurred’, and ‘familiar symptoms’ were significant predictors of correct advice provision. Conclusions: Most pharmacies provided appropriate advice for a condition-based request but less than half of them provided appropriate advice for a symptom-based request. More questions asked was associated with an increased chance of providing correct advice. Addition of condition-specific questions may improve the WWHAM-method.