58 resultados para pharmacist
Resumo:
Methods - Ethical approval for the study was granted by both the local National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Aston University’s REC. Seven focus groups were conducted between October and December 2011 in medical or community settings within inner-city Birmingham (UK). Discussions were guided by a theme plan which was developed from key themes identified by a literature review and piloted via a Patient Consultation Group. Each focus group had between 3 and 7 participants. The groups were digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were then subjected to thematic analysis via constant comparison in order to identify emerging themes. Results - Participants recognised the pharmacist as an expert source of advice about prescribed medicines, a source they frequently felt a need to consult as a result of the inadequate supply of medicines information from the prescriber. However, an emerging theme was a perception that pharmacists had an oblique profit motive relating to the supply of generic medicines with frequent changes to the ‘brand’ of generic supplied being attributed to profit-seeking by pharmacists. Such changes had a negative impact on the patient’s perceived efficacy of the therapy which may make non-adherence more likely. Conclusions - Whilst pharmacists were recognised as medicines experts, trust in the pharmacist was undermined by frequent changes to generic medicines. Such changes have the potential to adversely impact adherence levels. Further, quantitative research is recommended to examine if such views are generalisable to the wider population of Birmingham and to establish if such views impact on adherence levels.
Resumo:
To ascertain the thoughts of selected professional leaders on matters relating to pharmacist professionalism. These views will help build a picture of the professional status of pharmacy. Methods - Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and November 2013 with representatives from eight UK pharmacy leadership bodies. The bodies were selected for their roles in pharmacy policy development, regulation and professional representation. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis by constant comparison identified a number of emerging themes. Results - The following emerging themes were identified from the interview data: Influence of the Pharmacy Landscape: Participants highlighted the role that pharmacy plays within the National Health Service and wider society and how future developments may affect the professional status currently afforded to pharmacists. Vocalising Pharmacy: Communication within the profession and also with those external to the profession, including other healthcare professionals and the general public, is important to ensure a high professional standing. The Impact of Commercialism: Professionalism and commercialism were generally seen to be antithetical and a rise in commercialism may adversely impact on external perceptions of the professionalism of pharmacy. Responsibility for Professionalism: The professional image of pharmacy is maintained by the individuals operating within it regardless of their scope of practice. It is the responsibility of all those individuals to ensure that they actively demonstrate ‘professional’ behaviours. The Journey to Professionalism: Acquiring a professional ethos is a continual process but there are stages in a pharmacist’s development that are considered particularly important. These include upbringing, undergraduate education and pre-registration training. Conclusions - Pharmacy’s professional status in the UK remains open to challenge and vital to retaining that status is the public perception of pharmacists. Future research examining pharmacy’s claims to professional status should focus on exploring the attitudes of the general public in addition to the views of pharmacists.
Resumo:
How good is your pharmacy practice? And what does “good” look like? Take a look back at the education and training you have received in your career to date. Has it stood you in good stead? Certainly there is a need to establish a model of professional education and development that produces good pharmacists — you should be able to demonstrate your competence regardless of your sector of work. It may help if we move away from the view that excellence in pharmacy practice is primarily defined by where you practise and the kind of job that you do. The Modernising Pharmacy Careers programme’s aspirations to integrate the undergraduate degree with the preregistration training year are bold and to be applauded — provided the outcome delivers changes that are more than superficial. The new model needs to deliver greater integration of education with practice, while retaining an adequate science base. Theory should be put into the context of practice-based, cross-sector learning needs and opportunities. For example, is the classroom really the best environment in which to learn dispensing? Pharmacokinetic theory could be put into context through creatively designed work placements. And it might make more sense to learn patient counselling in a community pharmacy, and so on. Is it resources we lack to make this happen? Or do we lack the collective will to be imaginative, to be radical and to conceive new approaches to professional education? Implicit in this new approach to education is the expectation that pharmacists should teach and mentor and, conversely, that those who teach should also engage in relevant practice. University education must produce graduates whose knowledge and competence are useful to employers. Moreover, graduates must be adequately prepared to enter any area of the profession endowed with professional self-confidence (something, arguably, that needs further development within the pharmacy psyche). Of course, becoming qualified is just the beginning. Post-qualification, pharmacists need structured career paths that foster this professional confidence, support learning and ensure recognition. To this end, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society-led professional curriculum group is working to define knowledge, skills and experience for all areas of advanced practice. More than ever, the profession needs to adopt a culture of learning, teaching and practice research that is unified. The question is: how do we move away from merely collecting qualifications (trophies) to developing meaningful careers? Pharmacists in all areas and at all levels of the profession need to consider their own willingness to make this shift. The RPS and MPC are leading the way, but are we following?
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: The inappropriate use of antipsychotics in people with dementia for behaviour that challenges is associated with an estimated 1800 deaths annually. However, solely focusing on antipsychotics may transfer prescribing to other equally dangerous psychotropics. Little is known about the role of pharmacists in the management of psychotropics used to treat behaviours that challenge. This research aims to determine whether it is feasible to implement and measure the effectiveness of a combined pharmacy-health psychology intervention incorporating a medication review and staff training package to limit the prescription of psychotropics to manage behaviour that challenges in care home residents with dementia. METHODS/ANALYSIS: 6 care homes within the West Midlands will be recruited. People with dementia receiving medication for behaviour that challenges, or their personal consultee, will be approached regarding participation. Medication used to treat behaviour that challenges will be reviewed by the pharmacist, in collaboration with the general practitioner (GP), person with dementia and carer. The behavioural intervention consists of a training package for care home staff and GPs promoting person-centred care and treating behaviours that challenge as an expression of unmet need. The primary outcome measure is the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH). Other outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D and DEMQoL), cognition (sMMSE), health economic (CSRI) and prescribed medication including whether recommendations were implemented. Outcome data will be collected at 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months. Pretraining and post-training interviews will explore stakeholders' expectations and experiences of the intervention. Data will be used to estimate the sample size for a definitive study. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The project has received a favourable opinion from the East Midlands REC (15/EM/3014). If potential participants lack capacity, a personal consultee will be consulted regarding participation in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.
Resumo:
To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.
Resumo:
Background: In December 2007, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Patient Safety Agency in the UK (NICE-NPSA) published guidance that recommends all adults admitted to hospital receive medication reconciliation, usually by pharmacy staff. A costing and report tool was provided indicating a resource requirement of d12.9 million for England per year. Pediatric patients are excluded from this guidance. Objective: To determine the clinical significance of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital. Methods: A prospective observational study included pediatric patients admitted to a neurosurgical ward at Birmingham Childrens Hospital, Birmingham, England, between September 2006 and March 2007. Medication reconciliation was conducted by a pharmacist after the admission of each of 100 consecutive eligible patients aged 4 months to 16 years. The clinical significance of prescribing disparities between pre-admission medications and initial admission medication orders was determined by an expert multidisciplinary panel and quantified using an analog scale. The main outcome measure was the clinical signficance of unintentional variations between hospital admission medication orders and physician-prescribed pre-admission medication for repeat (continuing) medications. Results: Initial admission medication orders for children differed from prescribed pre-admission medication in 39%of cases. Half of all resulting prescribing variations in this setting had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration. These results mirror findings for adults. Conclusions: The introduction of medication reconciliation in children on admission to hospital has the potential to reduce discomfort or clinical deterioration by reducing unintentional changes to repeat prescribed medication. Consequently, there is no justification for the omission of children from the NICENPSA guidance concerning medication reconciliation in hospitals, and costing tools should include pediatric patients. © 2010 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
AIM: There have been concerns about maintaining appropriate clinical staff levels in Emergency Departments in England.1 The aim of this study was to determine if Emergency Department attendees aged from 0-16 years could be managed by community pharmacists or hospital independent prescriber pharmacists with or without further advanced clinical practice training. METHOD: A prospective, 48 site, cross-sectional, observational study of patients attending Emergency Departments (ED) in England, UK was conducted. Pharmacists at each site collected up to 400 admissions and paediatric patients were included in the data collection. The pharmacist independent prescribers (one for each site) were asked to identify patient attendance at their Emergency Department, record anonymised details of the cases-age, weight, presenting complaint, clinical grouping (e.g. medicine, orthopaedics), and categorise each presentation into one of four possible categories: CP, Community Pharmacist, cases which could be managed by a community pharmacist outside an ED setting; IP-cases that could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist with independent prescriber status; IPT, Independent Prescriber Pharmacist with additional training-cases which could be managed at ED by a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber with additional clinical training; and MT, Medical Team only-cases that were unsuitable for the pharmacist to manage. An Impact Index was calculated for the two most frequent clinical groupings using the formula: Impact index=percentage of the total workload of the clinical grouping multiplied by the percentage ability of pharmacists to manage that clinical group. RESULTS: 1623 out of 18,229 (9%) attendees, from 45 of the 48 sites, were children aged from 0 to 16 years of age (median 8 yrs, range 0-16), 749 were female and 874 were male. Of the 1623 admissions, 9% of the cases were judged to be suitable for clinical management by a community pharmacist (CP), 4% suitable for a hospital pharmacist independent prescriber (IP), 32% suitable for a hospital independent pharmacist prescriber with additional training (IPT); and the remaining 55% were only suitable for the Medical Team (MT). The most frequent clinical groups and impact index for the attendees were General Medicine=10.78 and orthopaedics=10.60. CONCLUSION: Paediatric patients attending Emergency Departments were judged by pharmacists to be suitable for management outside a hospital setting in approximately 1 in 11 cases, and by hospital independent prescriber pharmacists in 4 in 10 cases. With further training, it was found that the total proportion of cases that could be managed by a pharmacist was 45%. The greatest impact for pharmacist management occurs in general medicine and orthopaedics.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: A UK national survey of primary care physicians has indicated that the medication information on hospital discharge summary was incomplete or inaccurate most of the time. Internationally, studies have shown that hospital pharmacist's interventions reduce these discrepancies in the adult population. There have been no published studies on the incidence and severity of the discrepancies of the medication prescribed for children specifically at discharge to date. The objectives of this study were to investigate the incidence, nature and potential clinical severity of medication discrepancies at the point of hospital discharge in a paediatric setting. METHODS: Five weeks prospective review of hospital discharge letters was carried out. Medication discrepancies between the initial doctor's discharge letter and finalised drug chart were identified, pharmacist changes were recorded and their severity was assessed. The setting of the review was at a London, UK paediatric hospital providing local secondary and specialist tertiary care. The outcome measures were: - incidence and the potential clinical severity of medication discrepancies identified by the hospital pharmacist at discharge. KEY FINDINGS: 142 patients (64 female and 78 males, age range 1 month - 18 years) were discharged on 501 medications. The majority of patients were under the care of general surgery and general paediatric teams. One in three discharge letters contained at least one medication discrepancy and required pharmacist interventions to rectify prior to completion. Of these, 1 in 10 had the potential for patient harm if undetected. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines reconciliation by pharmacist at discharge may be a good intervention in preventing medication discrepancies which have the potential to cause moderate harm in paediatric patients.
Resumo:
Objectives: Hospital discharge is a transition of care, where medication discrepancies are likely to occur and potentially cause patient harm. The purpose of our study was to assess the prescribing accuracy of hospital discharge medication orders at a London, UK teaching hospital. The timeliness of the discharge summary reaching the general practitioner (GP, family physician) was also assessed based on the 72 h target referenced in the Care Quality Commission report.1 Method: 501 consecutive discharge medication orders from 142 patients were examined and the following records were compared (1) the final inpatient drug chart at the point of discharge, (2) printed signed copy of the initial to take away (TTA) discharge summary produced electronically by the physician, (3) the pharmacist's amendments on the initial TTA that were hand written, (4) the final electronic patient discharge summary record, (5) the patients final take home medication from the hospital. Discrepancies between the physician's order (6) and pharmacist's change(s) (7) were compared with two types of failures – ‘failure to make a required change’ and ‘change where none was required’. Once the patient was discharged, the patient's GP, was contacted 72 h after discharge to see if the patient discharge summary, sent by post or via email, was received. Results: Over half the patients seen (73 out of 142) patients had at least one discrepancy that was made on the initial TTA by the doctor and amended by the pharmacist. Out of the 501 drugs, there were 140 discrepancies, 108 were ‘failures to make a required change’ (77%) and 32 were ‘changes where none were required’ (23%). The types of ‘failures to make required changes’ discrepancies that were found between the initial TTA and pharmacist's amendments were paracetamol and ibuprofen changes (dose banding) 38 (27%), directions of use 34 (24%), incorrect formulation of medication 28 (20%) and incorrect strength 8 (6%). The types of ‘changes where none were required discrepancies’ were omitted medication 15 (11%), unnecessary drug 14 (10%) and incorrect medicine including spelling mistakes 3 (2%). After contacting the GPs of the discharged patients 72 h postdischarge; 49% had received the discharge summary and 45% had not, the remaining 6% were patients who were discharged without a GP. Conclusion: This study shows that doctor prescribing at discharge is often not accurate, and interventions made by pharmacist to reconcile are important at this point of care. It was also found that half the discharge summaries had not reached the patient's family physician (according to the GP) within 72 h.
Resumo:
Aims and Objectives: The NICE/NPSA guidance on Medicines Reconciliation in adults upon hospital admission excludes children under the age of 16.1 Hence the primary aim and objective of this study was to use medicines reconciliation to primarily identify if discrepancies occur upon hospital admission. Secondary objectives were to clinically assess for harm discrepancies that were identified in paediatric patients on long term medications at four hospitals across the UK. Method: Medicines reconciliation is a procedure where the current medication history of a patient prior to hospital admission would be taken and verifying the medication orders made at hospital admission against this history, addressing any discrepancies identified. Medicines reconciliation was carried out prospectively for 244 paediatric patients on chronic medication across four UK hospitals (Birmingham, London, Leeds and North Staffordshire) between January – May 2011. Medicines reconciliation was conducted by a clinical pharmacist using the following sources of information: 1) the patient's Pre-Admission Medication (PAM) from the patient's general practitioner 2) examination of the Patient's Own Medications brought into hospital, 3) a semi-structured interview with the parent-carers and 4) identification of admission medication orders written on the drug chart prior to clinical pharmacy input (Drug Chart). Discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart were documented and classified as intentional or unintentional. Intentional discrepancies were defined as changes that were made knowingly by the prescriber and confirmed. Unintentional discrepancies were assessed for clinical significance by an expert panel and assigned a significance score based on the likelihood of causing potential discomfort or clinical deterioration: class 1 unlikely, class 2 moderate and class 3 severe.2 Results: 1004 medication regimens were included from the 244 patients across the four sites. 588 of the 1004 (59%) medicines, had discrepancies between the PAM and Drug Chart; of these 36% (n = 209) were unintentional and included for clinically assessment. 189 drug discrepancies 30% were classified as class 1, 47% were class 2 and 23% were class 3 discrepancies. The remaining 20 discrepancies were cases where deviating from the PAM would have been the right thing to do, which might suggest that an intentional but undocumented discrepancy by the prescriber writing up the admission order may have occurred. Conclusion: The results suggest that medication discrepancies in paediatric patients do occur upon hospital admission, which do have a potential to cause harm and that medicines reconciliation is a potential solution to preventing such discrepancies. References: 1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. National Patient Safety Agency. PSG001. Technical patient safety solutions for medicines reconciliation on admission of adults to hospital. London: NICE; 2007. 2. Cornish, P. L., Knowles, S. R., Marchesano, et al. Unintended Medication Discrepancies at the Time of Hospital Admission. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005; 165:424–429
Resumo:
Introduction: Since 2005, the workload of community pharmacists in England has increased with a concomitant increase in stress and work pressure. However, it is unclear how these factors are impacting on the ability of community pharmacists to ensure accuracy during the dispensing process. This research seeks to extend our understanding of the nature, outcome, and predictors of dispensing errors. Methodology: A retrospective analysis of a purposive sample of incident report forms (IRFs) from the database of a pharmacist indemnity insurance provider was conducted. Data collected included; type of error, degree of harm caused, pharmacy and pharmacist demographics, and possible contributory factors. Results: In total, 339 files from UK community pharmacies were retrieved from the database. The files dated from June 2006 to November 2011. Incorrect item (45.1%, n = 153/339) followed by incorrect strength (24.5%, n = 83/339) were the most common forms of error. Almost half (41.6%, n = 147/339) of the patients suffered some form of harm ranging from minor harm (26.7%, n = 87/339) to death (0.3%, n = 1/339). Insufficient staff (51.6%, n = 175/339), similar packaging (40.7%, n = 138/339) and the pharmacy being busier than normal (39.5%, n = 134/339) were identified as key contributory factors. Cross-tabular analysis against the final accuracy check variable revealed significant association between the pharmacy location (P < 0.024), dispensary layout (P < 0.025), insufficient staff (P < 0.019), and busier than normal (P < 0.005) variables. Conclusion: The results provide an overview of some of the individual, organisational and technical factors at play at the time of a dispensing error and highlight the need to examine further the relationships between these factors and dispensing error occurrence.
Resumo:
Purpose - To explore the perceived and potential roles of pharmacists in the care of young people aged 10-24 years with chronic illness, through the exemplar of juvenile arthritis, from the perspectives of UK community and hospital pharmacists, health service commissioners, rheumatology health professionals and lay advocates. Methods - A sequential mixed methods study design comprising: focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; telephone interviews with pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders and commissioners, and multidisciplinary group discussions to prioritize roles generated by the first two qualitative phases. Results - The high priority roles for pharmacists, identified by pharmacists and rheumatology staff, were: developing generic healthcare skills among young people; transferring information effectively across care interfaces; building trusting relationships with young people; helping young people to find credible online health information, and the need to develop specialist expertise. Participants identified associated challenges for pharmacists in supporting young people with chronic illness. These challenges included parents collecting prescription refills alone, thus reducing opportunities to engage, and pharmacist isolation from the wider healthcare team. Conclusions - This study has led to the identification of specific enhancements to pharmacy services for young people which have received the endorsement of a wide range of stakeholders. These suggestions could inform the next steps in developing the contribution of community and hospital pharmacy to support young people with chronic illness in the optimal use of their medication.