Search

Background: Growing prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ageing population and its associated life-changing health and resource implications have led to a need to improve its early detection. Primary care is an ideal place to screen for AF; however, this is limited by shortages in general practitioner (GP) resources. Recent increases in the number of clinical pharmacists within primary care makes them ideally placed to conduct AF screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of GP practice-based clinical pharmacists to screen the over-65s for AF, using digital technology and pulse palpation during the influenza vaccination season., Methods and Findings: Screening was conducted over two influenza vaccination seasons, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, in four GP practices in Kent, United Kingdom. Pharmacists were trained by a cardiologist to pulse palpate, record, and interpret a single-lead ECG (SLECG). Eligible persons aged ≥65 years (y) attending an influenza vaccination clinic were offered a free heart rhythm check. Six hundred four participants were screened (median age 73 y, 42.7% male). Total prevalence of AF was 4.3%. All participants with AF qualified for anticoagulation and were more likely to be male (57.7%); be older; have an increased body mass index (BMI); and have a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category) score ≥ 3. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical pharmacists diagnosing AF using pulse palpation was 76.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4-91.0) and 92.2% (95% CI 89.7-94.3), respectively. This rose to 88.5% (95% CI 69.9-97.6) and 97.2% (95% CI 95.5-98.4) with an SLECG. At follow-up, four participants (0.7%) were diagnosed with new AF and three (0.5%) were initiated on anticoagulation. Screening with SLECG also helped identify new non-AF cardiovascular diagnoses, such as left ventricular hypertrophy, in 28 participants (4.6%). The screening strategy was cost-effective in 71.8% and 64.3% of the estimates for SLECG or pulse palpation, respectively. Feedback from participants (422/604) was generally positive. Key limitations of the study were that the intervention did not reach individuals who did not attend the practice for an influenza vaccination and there was a limited representation of UK ethnic minority groups in the study cohort., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that AF screening performed by GP practice-based pharmacists was feasible, economically viable, and positively endorsed by participants. Furthermore, diagnosis of AF by the clinical pharmacist using an SLECG was more sensitive and more specific than the use of pulse palpation alone. Future research should explore the key barriers preventing the adoption of national screening programmes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects >6% of people aged 65 years or older. Left undetected and untreated, patients may develop significant cardiovascular complications and have a fivefold increased risk of suffering a stroke. For 40% of all sufferers, AF can be asymptomatic. Every year in the UK, £2.2 billion is spent on AF-related strokes, so there is an urgent need to improve early detection of AF. This study aims to determine the feasibility of using trained clinical pharmacists based in general practices, to screen for AF, using pulse palpation and a single-lead ECG device on participants aged 65 years or older, attending influenza vaccination clinics., Methods and Analysis: Seven clinical pharmacists will be trained by a cardiologist to pulse palpate and record single-lead ECGs using the AliveCor Kardia Mobile device. Quantitative analysis will assess the accuracy and ability of the clinical pharmacist to identify pulse irregularities using pulse palpation and to record and interpret a single-lead ECG. The level of agreement of pulse irregularities detected by pulse palpation will be compared with those detected by the single-lead ECG device, as will the level of agreement between the cardiologist and the device's interpretation of the ECG. The proportion of people identified with AF (confirmed by the cardiologist) will be determined. Additional demographic data will be obtained from all participants through a questionnaire. Qualitative data will be captured from the participants, from the clinical pharmacists and from the general practitioners and practice staff to determine their views on this method of AF screening. We aim to recruit 600 participants across general practices within Kent., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol was approved by the London-Riverside Research Ethics committee. The findings of this study will be disseminated through forums including, but not limited to, peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background The 'Clinical Pharmacists in General Practice' (CPGP) pilot provided a template for general practice pharmacy professionals' (GPPPs) roles encouraging NHS England to fund >2000 practice-based pharmacists. However, many GPPPs work outside the CPGP initiative and little is known about the services they provide. Objectives: To explore services provided by all UK GPPPs (pharmacists/pharmacy technicians), including the types of services, perceived benefits and barriers to role development. Methods: A 26-item electronic questionnaire was developed using SurveyMonkey and piloted during cognitive interviews. A cross-sectional survey was conducted via social media, primary care organisations and emails to CPGP pilot sites between November 2018 and March 2019. Three reminders were sent 1 week apart. Key findings: Ninety-one complete responses were received (81 pharmacists; 10 technicians). Over 80% of pharmacists provided clinical services, such as medication reviews or management of long-term conditions. More pharmacists within CPGP pilot managed repeat prescribing requests (P = 0.035). Technicians took responsibility for primarily non-clinical roles, including commissioning or safety alerts/drug recalls. A third of GPPPs wished to develop care home services. Perceived benefits of GPPPs' services included improved utilisation/development of professional skills, identifying medicines-related issues and reduction in medication waste. Respondents were satisfied with professional relationships but reported workload issues, limited patient awareness of their roles and restricted opportunities to contribute to service development, which was associated with unsatisfactory support/mentorship (P < 0.001). Conclusion General practice pharmacy professionals deliver clinical and non-clinical services which may benefit patients, general practice and the healthcare system. General practices and national organisations should provide GPPPs with tailored support and exploit the combined strengths of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to tackle increased workload. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects up to 10% of people aged ≥65 years, yet a third of all cases remain undetected. Practice- based pharmacists are in an ideal position to facilitate opportunistic AF screening, while increasing general practice capacity at a time of workforce crisis. Aim: To explore the perspectives of three stakeholder groups involved in the 'Pharmacists Detecting Atrial Fibrillation' (PDAF) study to elucidate the facilitators and barriers to pharmacist- led AF screening in general practice. Design & setting: A qualitative study took place, comprising homogeneous focus groups with stakeholders in Kent, UK. Method: The stakeholder groups -- patients, general practice staff (GPS), and clinical pharmacists (CPs) -- were recruited using convenience sampling. Audio- recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a deductive Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) approach. Results: Twenty- five patients, four pharmacists, and nine practice staff participated in six focus groups. Three main themes were identified: knowledge and awareness; prioritisation of resources; and environmental considerations. The public's lack of awareness of AF- related risks and pharmacistled screening services was highlighted. Practice- based pharmacists were perceived as an underutilised educational resource which, together with novel electrocardiogram devices, enabled convenient access to screening while reducing GPs' workload. Participants agreed that AF screening should be incorporated into personalised health checks and at- risk groups should be prioritised, such as care home residents. Patients favoured the general practice environment over the community pharmacy where concerns of privacy, staffing, and commercialisation were raised. Conclusion: The findings of this study support the introduction of pharmacist- led AF screening programmes in general practice surgeries. Commissioners should consider the added value of utilising CPs and focus on the delivery of AF screening within an integrated service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five years after the introduction of the Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) in the UK, the role pharmacists play to help prepare medical students for this challenge is uncertain. Our study explored pharmacists' perceptions about their role in undergraduate medical training for the Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA). One hundred and seventy-nine prospective participants from UK hospitals and education and training boards were emailed an interview schedule aimed at ascertaining their current involvement in undergraduate medical education, particularly the preparation for PSA. Responses received via email were thematically-analysed. A total of 27 hospital pharmacists and 3 pharmacists from local education and training boards participated in the interviews. Pharmacists were positive about their involvement in medical student training, recognising the added value they could provide in prescribing practice. However, respondents expressed concerns regarding resource availability and the need for formal educational practice mentoring. Despite a low response rate (17%), this research highlights the potential value of pharmacists' input into medical education and the need for a discussion on strategies to expand this role to maximise the benefits from having a pharmacist skill mix when teaching safe prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]