Search

Background: Qualitative studies have provided important insights into how hospital pharmacists' work changes when electronic medication management (EMM) systems are introduced. Quantitative studies of work practice change are rare. Despite the use of EMM systems internationally, there are no cross-country comparative studies of their impact on health professionals' work. We aimed to quantify and compare the type and magnitude of changes in hospital pharmacists' work pre- and post-EMM implementation in two countries., Methods: Parallel, direct observational, time and motion studies of pharmacists in Australia and England pre- and post-EMM implementation. 20 pharmacists were observed: 9 in an Australian 440-bed hospital (155 h); and 11 pharmacists in a 500-bed English hospital (258 h). The Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) software was used to collect observational data. Proportions of observed time in 11 tasks by study period (pre- versus post-EMM) and site, time spent with others or alone, and using different tools (e.g computers, paper) were calculated. Magnitude of changes between pre- and post-EMM by task and country were determined using z-tests for proportions adjusting for multiple testing., Results: At baseline, Australian and English pharmacists spent the greatest proportion of time in medication review. Post-EMM, time in medication review (Australia 21.6%-27.5%; England 27.1%-33.8%) and history-taking (Australia 7.6%-13.3%; England 19.5%-28.9%) significantly increased. Despite country differences in these tasks at baseline, the magnitude of changes did not significantly differ. English pharmacists increased time engaged in medication discussions with patients post-EMM (from 5.9% to 10.8%; p = 0.01). The Australian rate did not change (18.0%-27.2%; p = 0.09), but was higher at baseline. Post-EMM, Australian pharmacists spent 63.4% of time working alone, compared to 92.0% for English pharmacists., Conclusions: EMM systems impacted the same core areas of work and had a similar magnitude of effect on pharmacists' work in both countries. Anticipated reductions in medication review and history taking were not observed., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients and professionals taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of blood glucose, blood pressure (BP) and weight telemonitoring in type 2 diabetes supported by primary care, and identify factors facilitating or hindering the effectiveness of the intervention and those likely to influence its potential translation to routine practice., Design: Qualitative study adopting an interpretive descriptive approach., Participants: 23 patients, 6 nurses and 4 doctors who were participating in a RCT of blood glucose and BP telemonitoring. A maximum variation sample of patients from within the trial based on age, sex and deprivation status of the practice was sought., Setting: 12 primary care practices in Scotland and England., Method: Data were collected via recorded semistructured interviews. Analysis was inductive with themes presented within an overarching thematic framework. Multiple strategies were employed to ensure that the analysis was credible and trustworthy., Results: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight by people with type 2 diabetes was feasible. The data generated by telemonitoring supported self-care decisions and medical treatment decisions. Motivation to self-manage diet was increased by telemonitoring of blood glucose, and the 'benign policing' aspect of telemonitoring was considered by patients to be important. The convenience of home monitoring was very acceptable to patients although professionals had some concerns about telemonitoring increasing workload and costs., Conclusions: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight in primary care is a promising way of improving diabetes management which would be highly acceptable to the type of patients who volunteered for this study., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN71674628; Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)