scholarly journals Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035087
Author(s):  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Laura McCullagh ◽  
Emma Wallace ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Practice Team ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Medication Changes

ObjectiveLimited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.DesignNon-randomised pilot study.SettingPrimary care in Ireland.ParticipantsFour general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles.InterventionA pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education.Outcome measuresAnonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist.ResultsAcross four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients’ treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients’ self-reported quality of life.ConclusionsThis non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Laura McCullagh ◽  
Emma Wallace ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Practice Team ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Medication Changes

AbstractObjectiveLimited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.DesignNon-randomised pilot studySettingPrimary care in IrelandParticipantsFour general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles.InterventionA pharmacist joined the practice team for six months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face-to-face or chart-based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits, and facilitated practice-based education.Outcome measuresAnonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and six weeks after medication review by the pharmacist.ResultsAcross four practices, 787 patients were identified as having 1,521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to potentially inappropriate or high-risk prescribing were addressed most often by the prescriber (51.8%), compared to cost-related issues (7.5%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57,000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients’ treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients’ self-reported quality of life.ConclusionsThis non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.Article summaryStrengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study examining the role of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and the feasibility of evaluating this role.Integration of pharmacists was limited to four general practices, although these were diverse in terms of practice characteristics.A range of medication and patient-reported outcome measures data were collected, although because this was a pilot study there was no control group to compare these to.

scholarly journals Integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e041541
Author(s):  
Aisling Croke ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Fiona Boland ◽  
Laura McCullagh ◽  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionManaging patients with multiple conditions (multimorbidity) is a major challenge for healthcare systems internationally, particularly in older patients. Multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy increase treatment burden and the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and both are complex to manage in primary care. Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into general practice teams could improve medication management for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Building on findings from a non-randomised, uncontrolled General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) feasibility study conducted in Irish primary care, the aim of this study is to conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the GPP study, to assess feasibility, intervention impact, costs and appropriateness of continuing to a definitive cRCT.Methods and analysisThis pilot cRCT will involve 8 general practitioner (GP) practices and 120 patients. Practices will identify and recruit patients aged ≥65 years, who are taking ≥10 regular medications. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control after baseline data collection. Intervention practices will have a pharmacist integrated within their service, working with GPs, patients and practice staff to optimise prescribing and other medication-related activities. Control practices will provide standard GP care. The primary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, uptake of medication reviews and study retention. For the primary clinical outcome, the number of potentially inappropriate prescribing incidences per patient will be collected. Secondary outcomes will include medication-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and data pertaining to the role and impact of the pharmacist on prescribing. In addition, economic and process evaluations will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee and will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN Registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18752158).

scholarly journals Outcome prioritisation tool for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity: a pilot study in general practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (660) ◽  
pp. e501-e506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jojanneke JGT van Summeren ◽  
Jan Schuling ◽  
Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp ◽  
Petra Denig
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Medication Change ◽  
Medication Reviews ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Medication Changes

BackgroundSeveral methods have been developed to conduct and support medication reviews in older persons with multimorbidity. Assessing the patient’s priorities for achieving specific health outcomes can guide the medication review process. Little is known about the impact of conducting such assessments.AimThis pilot study aimed to determine proposed and observed medication changes when using an outcome prioritisation tool (OPT) during a medication review in general practice.Design and settingParticipants were older patients with multimorbidity (aged ≥69 years) with polypharmacy (five or more chronic medications) from the practices of 14 GPs.MethodPatients were asked to prioritise four universal health outcomes — remaining alive, maintaining independence, reducing pain, and reducing other symptoms — using an OPT. GPs used this prioritisation to review the medication and to propose and discuss medication changes with the patient. The outcomes included the proposed medication change as documented by the GP, and the observed medication change in the electronic health record at follow-up. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine medication changes according to the prioritised health outcomes.ResultsA total of 59 patients using 486 medications prioritised the four health outcomes. GPs proposed 34 changes of medication, mainly stopping, for 20 patients. At follow-up, 14 medication changes were observed for 10 patients. The stopping of medication (mostly preventive) was particularly observed in patients who prioritised ‘reducing other symptoms’ as most important.ConclusionUsing an OPT leads mainly to the stopping of medication. Medication changes appeared to be easiest for patients who prioritised ‘reducing other symptoms’ as most important.

scholarly journals An Effectiveness Trial of STEADI in an Outpatient, Primary Care Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 774-774
Author(s):  
David Rein ◽  
Madeleine Hackney ◽  
Michele Dougherty ◽  
Camille Vaughan ◽  
Laurie Imhof ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Primary Care Practice ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Strength Assessment ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Study Team ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The STEADI Options trial uses a randomized, controlled-trial design to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the STEADI Initiative . Beginning March, 2020, we will randomize 3,000 adults ≥ 65 years of age at risk for falls seen in an Emory Clinic primary care practice to: (1) full STEADI; (2) a STEADI-derived gait, balance, and strength assessment with physical therapy referrals; (3) a STEADI-derived medication review and management; or (4) usual care. This presentation will discuss decisions made by the study team to facilitate implementation of STEADI including electronically conducting screening prior to the date of encounter, the use of dedicated nursing staff to conduct assessments, implementation of strength, balance, orthostatic hypotension, and vision testing, methods to facilitate medication review, and communication of assessment information to providers. The results from this study will be used to estimate the impact of STEADI on falls, service utilization, and costs over one year.

scholarly journals Cross sectional study estimating prevalence of heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in community patients at risk

Heart ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
O W Nielsen ◽  
J Hilden ◽  
C T Larsen ◽  
J F Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
General Practices

OBJECTIVETo examine a general practice population to measure the prevalence of signs and symptoms of heart failure (SSHF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).DESIGNCross sectional screening study in three general practices followed by echocardiography.SETTING AND PATIENTSAll patients ⩾ 50 years in two general practices and ⩾ 40 years in one general practice were screened by case record reviews and questionnaires (n = 2158), to identify subjects with some evidence of heart disease. Among these, subjects were sought who had SSHF (n = 115). Of 357 subjects with evidence of heart disease, 252 were eligible for examination, and 126 underwent further cardiological assessment, including 43 with SSHF.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESPrevalence of SSHF as defined by a modified Boston index, LVSD defined as an indirectly measured left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽ 0.45, and numbers of subjects needing an echocardiogram to detect one case with LVSD.RESULTSSSHF afflicted 0.5% of quadragenarians and rose to 11.7% of octogenarians. Two thirds were handled in primary care only. At ⩾ 50 years of age 6.4% had SSHF, 2.9% had LVSD, and 1.9% (95% confidence interval 1.3% to 2.5%) had both. To detect one case with LVSD in primary care, 14 patients with evidence of heart disease without SSHF and 5.5 patients with SSHF had to be examined.CONCLUSIONSSHF is extremely prevalent in the community, especially in primary care, but more than two thirds do not have LVSD. The number of subjects with some evidence of heart disease needing an echocardiogram to detect one case of LVSD is 14.

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) study

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 711-718
Author(s):  
Oscar James ◽  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Barbara Clyne
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Practice Team ◽  
Prescribing Quality ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Abstract Background There is some evidence to suggest that pharmacists integrated into primary care improves patient outcomes and prescribing quality. Despite this growing evidence, there is a lack of detail about the context of the role. Objective To explore the implementation of The General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention (pharmacists integrating into general practice within a non-randomized pilot study in Ireland), the experiences of study participants and lessons for future implementation. Design and setting Process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Methods A process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach was conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Results Twenty-three participants (three pharmacists, four GPs, four patients, four practice nurses, four practice managers and four practice administrators) were interviewed. Themes reported include day-to-day practicalities (incorporating location and space, systems and procedures and pharmacists’ tasks), relationships and communication (incorporating GP/pharmacist mode of communication, mutual trust and respect, relationship with other practice staff and with patients) and role perception (incorporating shared goals, professional rewards, scope of practice and logistics). Conclusions Pharmacists working within the general practice team have potential to improve prescribing quality. This process evaluation found that a pharmacist joining the general practice team was well accepted by the GP and practice staff and effective interprofessional relationships were described. Patients were less clear of the overall benefits. Important barriers (such as funding, infrastructure and workload) and facilitators (such as teamwork and integration) to the intervention were identified which will be incorporated into a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

scholarly journals Acceptability of a vocational advice service for patients consulting in primary care with musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of general practitioners, vocational advisers and patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Sanders ◽  
Gwenllian Wynne-Jones ◽  
Bie Nio Ong ◽  
Majid Artus ◽  
Nadine Foster
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Constant Comparative Method ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Qualitative Exploration

Aims: Using qualitative interviews, this study explored the experiences of GPs, vocational advisers and patients towards a new vocational advice (VA) service in primary care. Methods: This study was nested within the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised controlled trial. The SWAP trial located a VA service within three general practices in Staffordshire. Interviews took place with 10 GPs 12 months after the introduction of the VA service, four vocational advisers whilst the VA service was running and 20 patients on discharge from the VA service. The data were analysed using the constant comparative method, which is a variation of grounded theory. Results: The key factors determining the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the VA service from the perspective of the three groups of stakeholders were (1) the timing of referrals to the VA, (2) the perceived lack of patient demand for the service and (3) role uncertainty experienced by VAs. Conclusions: Early vocational intervention may not be appropriate for all musculoskeletal patients with work difficulties. Indeed, many patients felt they did not require the support of a VA, either because they had self-limiting work difficulties and/or already had support mechanisms in place to return to work. Future VA interventions may be better implemented in a targeted way so that appropriate patients are identified with characteristics which can best be addressed by the VA service.

scholarly journals The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: A protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Hynes ◽  
Andrew W Murphy ◽  
Nigel Hart ◽  
Collette Kirwan ◽  
Sarah Mulligan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Medication Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractBackgroundWhile international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MyComrade (MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically-informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim in this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of a trial of the intervention with unique modifications accounting for contextual variations in two neighbouring health systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).MethodsA pilot cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, using a mixed methods process evaluation to investigate the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention. A total of 16 practices will be recruited (eight in ROI; eight in NI) and four practices in each jurisdiction will be randomly allocated to intervention or control. Twenty people living with multimorbidity and prescribed ≥10 repeat medications will be recruited from each practice prior to practice randomisation. In intervention practices, the MyComrade intervention will be delivered by pairs of GPs in ROI, and a GP and Practice Based Pharmacist (PBP) in NI. The GPs/GP and PBP will schedule time to review medications together using a checklist. Usual care will proceed in practices in the control arm. Data will be collected via electronic health records and postal questionnaires at recruitment, and 4- and 8-months after randomisation. Qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and explore experiences related to multimorbidity management will be conducted with a purposive sample of GPs, PBPs, practice administration staff and patients in intervention and control practices. The feasibility of conducting a health economic evaluation as part of a future definitive trial will be assessed.DiscussionThe findings of this pilot study will assess the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention in two different health systems. Evaluation of the progression criteria will guide the decision to progress to a definitive trial and inform trial design. The findings will also contribute to the growing evidence-base related to intervention development and feasibility studies.Trial registrationRegistry: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80017020; Date of confirmation 4/11/2019; Retrospectively registered; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80017020.

scholarly journals The links between the amount of antipsychotic medication prescribed at GP practice level, local demographic factors and medication selection

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S165-S166
Author(s):  
Adrian Heald ◽  
Mike Stedman ◽  
Sanam Farman ◽  
Mark Davies ◽  
Roger Gadsby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Antipsychotic Medication ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
World Health ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Practice Population ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Antipsychotic Prescribing

AimsTo examine the factors that relate to antipsychotic prescribing in general practices across England and how these relate to cost changes in recent years.BackgroundAntipsychotic medications are the first-line pharmacological intervention for severe mental illnesses(SMI) such as schizophrenia and other psychoses, while also being used to relieve distress and treat neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia.Since 2014 many antipsychotic agents have moved to generic provision. In 2017_18 supplies of certain generic agents were affected by substantial price increases.MethodThe study examined over time the prescribing volume and prices paid for antipsychotic medication by agent in primary care and considered if price change affected agent selection by prescribers.The NHS in England/Wales publishes each month the prescribing in general practice by BNF code. This was aggregated for the year 2018_19 using Defined Daily doses (DDD) as published by the World Health Organisation Annual Therapeutic Classification (WHO/ATC) and analysed by delivery method and dose level. Cost of each agent year-on-year was determined.Monthly prescribing in primary care was consolidated over 5 years (2013-2018) and DDD amount from WHO/ATC for each agent was used to convert the amount to total DDD/practice.ResultDescriptionIn 2018_19 there were 10,360,865 prescriptions containing 136 million DDD with costs of £110 million at an average cost of £0.81/DDD issued in primary care. We included 5,750 GP Practices with practice population >3000 and with >30 people on their SMI register.Effect of priceIn 2017_18 there was a sharp increase in overall prices and they had not reduced to expected levels by the end of the 2018_19 evaluation year. There was a gradual increase in antipsychotic prescribing over 2013-2019 which was not perturbed by the increase in drug price in 2017/18.RegressionDemographic factorsThe strongest positive relation to increased prescribing of antipsychotics came from higher social disadvantage, higher population density(urban), and comorbidities e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD). Higher %younger and %older populations, northerliness and non-white (Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)) ethnicity were all independently associated with less antipsychotic prescribing.Prescribing FactorsHigher DDD/general practice population was linked with higher %injectable, higher %liquid, higher doses/prescription and higher %zuclopenthixol. Less DDD/population was linked with general practices using higher %risperidone and higher spending/dose of antipsychotic.ConclusionHigher levels of antipsychotic prescribing are driven by social factors/comorbidities. The link with depot medication prescriptions, alludes to the way that antipsychotics can induce receptor supersensitivity with consequent dose escalation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document