Uptake of Community Pharmacist-Delivered MedsCheck Diabetes Medication Review Service in Ontario between 2010 and 2014

Exploring the perspectives and strategies of Ontario community pharmacists to improve routine follow-up for patients with diabetes: A qualitative study

Background:

Medication reviews are a fundamental activity carried out as part of comprehensive care delivered by pharmacists. Varying programs that reimburse pharmacists for conduct of medication reviews are in place in different jurisdictions in Canada and other countries around the world. The MedsCheck Diabetes (MCD) program is a publicly funded service in Ontario, Canada, offered to patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Through this service, pharmacists can complete a focused medication review with advice, training, monitoring and follow-up diabetes education. Although pharmacists can be reimbursed for patient follow-up activities, a low number of follow-up medication reviews are billed through this program.

Methods:

The study explores the barriers and facilitators that community pharmacists in Ontario experience in conducting routine monitoring and follow-up of patients with diabetes. Using a descriptive content analysis approach study, semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 8 community pharmacists working in Ontario.

Results:

Three main themes emerged: the design of the MCD program, the state of community pharmacy and collaboration and relationships. These themes demonstrate challenges and potential strategies recognized by community pharmacists to conduct routine diabetes follow-up through the MCD program.

Conclusion:

This study found that the design of the MedsCheck Diabetes program, the community pharmacy environment and the relationships between pharmacists, patients and prescribers can pose a challenge in the conduct of routine monitoring and follow-up through the MedsCheck Diabetes program.

Medication reviews in community pharmacy: a scoping review of policy, practice and research in Canada

Objectives

This scoping review aims to systematically map the empirical evidence on publicly funded medication reviews provided by community pharmacists in Canada and identify gaps that could inform future research directions.

Methods

We used a scoping review framework and PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews to conduct the study. Three electronic databases were searched for papers published between January 2000 until August 2020. Data was charted on study characteristics, and a thematic synthesis was performed.

Key findings

Of 41 original studies included, most were conducted in Ontario (n = 21). Majority of the studies employed quantitative designs (70%). Five major themes identified were program uptake, patient health outcomes, stakeholder beliefs and attitudes, processes and collaboration and pharmacy workplace culture, which varied considerably. At the individual, organizational and policy levels, many factors were interrelated and influenced the implementation of reimbursed medication reviews by community pharmacists. Gaps in eligibility policy highlighted some patients who may have complex needs are excluded. Variation in clinical outcomes may relate to different types of medication review and pharmacist practice across Canada. Few researchers evaluated eligibility criteria, the impact of policy changes, strategies to engage patients and healthcare professionals, patient–pharmacist communication or compared practice models of medication reviews. About 12% of the research applied a theoretical framework.

Summary

Publicly funded medication reviews in Canadian community pharmacies reduce medication-related problems and potentially improve patient health outcomes. Future research and policies could consider addressing barriers and exploring models for sustainable delivery of high-quality medication reviews internationally.

High-risk medication in community care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To review the international literature related to high-risk medication (HRM) in community care, in order to (1) define a definition of HRM and (2) list the medication that is considered HRM in community care.

METHODS

Scoping review: Five databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Web Of Science, and Cochrane) and extended with a hand search of cited references. Two researchers reviewed the papers independently. All extracted definitions and lists of HRM were subjected to a self-developed quality appraisal. Data were extracted, analysed and summarised in tables. Critical attributes were extracted in order to analyse the definitions.

RESULTS

Of the 109 papers retrieved, 36 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Definitions for HRM in community care were used inconsistently among the papers, and various recurrent attributes of the concept HRM were used. Taking the recurrent attributes and the quality score of the definitions into account, the following definition could be derived: "High-risk medication are medications with an increased risk of significant harm to the patient. The consequences of this harm can be more serious than those with other medications". A total of 66 specific medications or categories were extracted from the papers. Opioids, insulin, warfarin, heparin, hypnotics and sedatives, chemotherapeutic agents (excluding hormonal agents), methotrexate and hypoglycaemic agents were the most common reported HRM in community care.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature pertaining to HRM in community care was examined. The definitions and medicines reported as HRM in the literature are used inconsistently. We suggested a definition for more consistent use in future research and policy. Future research is needed to determine more precisely which definitions should be considered for HRM in community care.

Pharmacists report lack of reinforcement and the work environment as the biggest barriers to routine monitoring and follow-up for people with diabetes: A survey of community pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Medications with lifestyle are the cornerstone of diabetes management and routine monitoring and follow-up are essential to the delivery of quality care. Documented follow-up rates by pharmacists for people with diabetes are low despite good uptake of initial medication assessments in medication review programs.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the barriers and facilitators to routine monitoring and follow-up for people with diabetes by community pharmacists.

METHODS

Pharmacists were invited to complete a survey designed using the Theoretical Domains Framework Version 2 TDF (v2) consisting of 39 questions based on the 14 domains of the TDFv2 with quantitative response options using a 7 point Likert scale and 2 open-ended questions. Baseline information about the respondents and their practice sites were summarized using descriptive statistics. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each of the Likert scale responses. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed and coded using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

346 pharmacists completed the survey (4.76% response rate). The TDF domains found to be positively influencing the delivery of routine monitoring and follow-up activities were beliefs about consequences for people with diabetes (6.08 ± 1.13), pharmacist knowledge (5.93 ± 0.99), pharmacist skills (5.44 ± 1.44), social influences (5.36 ± 1.32) and optimism (5.20 ± 1.58). The domains found to be negatively influencing were reinforcement (3.0 ± 1.89) and environmental context and resources (3.30 ± 1.81). Themes emerging from the thematic analysis included time and competing priorities, reimbursement, patient engagement, workflow and human resources, access to labs and clinical information, information technology and support from the owner/manager.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research concludes that pharmacists report that their knowledge, skills, and beliefs about their role and responsibility, social influences and optimism are positive influences on routine monitoring and follow-up while reinforcement and the environmental context/resources are the greatest negative influences. Strategies to improve follow-up should be focused in these areas.

Development and Testing of a Clinical Practice Framework for Pharmacists to Assess Patients' Travel-Related Risks: The 5W Approach to Travel Risk Identification

Objective: To assist with identifying patients who may be managed by pharmacists without additional travel medicine training, versus those who may benefit from referral, we developed and validated a clinical practice framework. This framework was then piloted in eight pharmacies in Ontario, Canada, from March to August 2019. Methods: A panel of experts, comprised of physicians and pharmacists from Ontario, Canada, holding a Certificate in Travel Health^TM from the International Society of Travel Medicine was recruited. This panel participated electronically in the development of the framework in three stages: (1) Sharing their current approach when performing information gathering and assessing risk in a traveling patient; (2) judging of items collated from all panellists on the basis of how essential they are to a risk assessment; and (3) validation of items deemed essential by the panel using the Item and Average Content Validity Index. The framework was then released to community pharmacies, where pharmacists that self-identified as beginners to travel medicine completed pre- and post-test phase surveys to determine the utility of the framework. Key Findings: A total of 64 items for consideration were deemed essential enough to proceed to content validation, organized into 5 ‘W’ domains: Who, What, Where, When, and Why. Each item was ranked by the experts according to its relevancy, resulting in an Average-Content Validity Index of 0.91. The resulting framework was titled “The 5W Approach to Travel Risk Identification.” This clinical practice framework is the first published assessment tool for travel medicine tailored for pharmacy’s scope of practice that has been content validated. Pharmacists reported that the framework is simple to use and provides structure for interactions with travelling patients. However, it may not be as beneficial for those with a higher level of travel medicine expertise than the average pharmacist. Conclusion: The 5W Approach tool allows pharmacists inexperienced in travel medicine to collect information when required to use their professional judgement when assessing traveling patients as either high-risk (requiring a referral to a travel medicine specialist) or low-risk. With the aim of supporting pharmacists to be more confident in caring for traveling patients and increasing their involvement in travel medicine, future research will test this framework for feasibility in Canadian community pharmacy practice.

Impact of the 2016 Policy Change on the Delivery of MedsCheck Services in Ontario: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

MedsCheck (MC) is an annual medication review service delivered by community pharmacists and funded by the government of Ontario since 2007 for residents taking three or more medications for chronic conditions. In 2010, MC was expanded to include patients with diabetes (MCD), home-bound patients (MCH), and residents of long-term care homes (MCLTC). The Ontario government introduced an abrupt policy change effective 1 October 2016 that added several components to all MC services, especially those completed in the community. We used an interrupted time series design to examine the impact of the policy change (24 months pre- and post-intervention) on the monthly number of MedsCheck services delivered. Immediate declines in all services were identified, especially in the community (47%–64% drop MC, 71%–83% drop MCD, 55% drop MCH, and 9%–14% drop MCLTC). Gradual increases were seen over 24 months post-policy change, yet remained 21%–76% lower than predicted for MedsCheck services delivered in the community, especially for MCD. In contrast, MCLTC services were similar or exceeded predicted values by September 2018 (from 5.1% decrease to 3.5% increase). A more effective implementation of health policy changes is needed to ensure the feasibility and sustainability of professional community pharmacy services.

Community pharmacists' experiences with the Saskatchewan Medication Assessment Program

Background

The Saskatchewan Medication Assessment Program (SMAP) is a publicly funded community pharmacy-based medication assessment service with limited previous evaluation. The purpose of this study was to explore community pharmacists' experiences with the SMAP.

Methods

Online, self-administered questionnaire that consisted of a combination of 53 Likert scale and free-text questions. All licensed pharmacists who were practising in a community pharmacy setting in Saskatchewan were eligible to participate.

Results

Response rate was 20.3% (n = 228/1124). Most respondents agreed that the SMAP is achieving all of its intended purposes. For example, 89.7% agreed that the SMAP improved medication safety for patients who receive the service. Most pharmacists enjoyed performing the assessments (84.6%) and were confident in their ability to identify drug-related problems (88.3%). Pharmacists reported lack of time, patients having difficulty coming to the pharmacy and restrictive eligibility criteria as the top barriers to the SMAP. Good teamwork, employer support and personal professional commitment were the top recognized facilitators. Respondents made several suggestions to improve the SMAP in the free-text areas of the questionnaire.

Conclusions

Community pharmacists in Saskatchewan were positive and confident about performing medication assessments, and most agreed that the SMAP is achieving all of the intended purposes. Respondents also identified several barriers to providing SMAP services, which have resulted in specific recommendations that should be addressed to improve the program.

Process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation of two Australian instruments to evaluate the physician-pharmacist collaboration in Germany

BACKGROUND

Building interprofessional working relationships between physicians and pharmacists is essential to ensure high-quality patient care. To assess which factors influence the performance and success of their collaboration, validated instruments should be used, such as the Australian "Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument (ATCI)" and the "Frequency of Interprofessional Collaboration Instrument (FICI)". Both instruments were already translated in a previous German study, but not pretested for comprehensibility or cultural appropriateness to ensure that the target group is able to adequately answer the translated items.

OBJECTIVES

To translate and particularly cross-culturally adapt two Australian instruments measuring physicians' and pharmacists' attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration and the frequency of their interactions for use in Germany.

METHODS

The ATCI and FICI were translated following internationally recognised guidelines. Two-step cognitive interviewing was performed with physicians and pharmacists working in ambulatory care in Germany. The "Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research" were used to report this study.

RESULTS

Overall, 2 forward and 2 back translations, and 38 cognitive interviews, i.e. cognitive probing (N = 10) and behaviour observation (N = 28), with 18 physicians and 20 pharmacists were performed. Experts discussed all potential changes. The ATCI and FICI were translated introducing 15 minor (e.g. paraphrasing, item order) and 6 major (e.g. 2 more items in FICI, additional response options) adaptations. The ATCI-P/GP-German and FICI-P/GP-German were found to be easy to answer and clearly-phrased.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the importance of using recognised methods to translate and adapt questionnaires, consisting of at least four steps: forward translation, back translation, cognitive interviewing and finalisation (each reviewed by an expert panel making their decisions by consensus). A profoundly pretested German-speaking instrument is now available to evaluate and describe interprofessional collaboration between physicians and pharmacists. However, collecting further sociodemographic and contextual information seems necessary for enhanced interpretation of future results.

Uptake of Travel Health Services by Community Pharmacies and Patients Following Pharmacist Immunization Scope Expansion in Ontario, Canada

In December 2016, pharmacists in Ontario, Canada with authorization to administer injections saw an expansion in their scope from a restriction to the influenza vaccination only to now including an additional 13 vaccine-preventable diseases, largely those related to travel. It was uncertain whether this change in scope would see sufficient uptake, or translate to a corresponding expansion in other travel health service offerings from community pharmacies. In October/November 2017 a survey was conducted of all licensed community pharmacists in Ontario, followed by semi-structured interviews with 6 survey respondents in June 2018. A web-based survey of members of the public from a single region of the province was also conducted in September 2018 to assess uptake of expanded vaccination services. Broad variability in uptake of these services was noted, ranging from the dispensing of travel-related medications and vaccinations only through to vaccine administration and prescribing under medical directive; however, uptake was generally at the lower end of this spectrum. This was evidenced by 94% of pharmacists reporting administering fewer than 10 travel vaccinations per month, fewer than 10% of patients reporting receiving a travel vaccine administered by a pharmacist, and a maximum of 30 pharmacies (of nearly 6000 in the province) designated to provide yellow fever vaccinations. Fewer than 1 in 3 pharmacists reported performing some form of pre-travel consultation in their practice, often limited to low-risk cases only. Barriers and facilitators reported were similar for these services as they were for other non-dispensing services, including insufficient time to integrate the service into their workload, perceived lack of knowledge and confidence in travel health, and low patient awareness of these new services available to them through community pharmacies.

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update

Objectives

Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services.

Data sources

Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed.

Study selection

Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing.

Data extraction

Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria and fee structure.

Results

Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service.

Conclusion

Although funding for pharmacists' activities continues to show growth, concerns identified in previous reviews persist, including the great variability in remunerated activities, patient eligibility and fees. These issues may limit opportunities for multijurisdictional program and service outcome evaluation. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2019;152:xx-xx.

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update

OBJECTIVES

Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services, and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across Pubmed (Medline), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing.

DATA EXTRACTION

Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial, or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria, and fee structure.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations, and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service.

CONCLUSION

Although funding for pharmacists' activities continues to show growth, concerns identified in previous reviews persist, including the great variability in remunerated activities, patient eligibility, and fees. These issues may limit opportunities for multijurisdictional program and service outcome evaluation.

Community pharmacists' perspectives on shared decision-making in diabetes management

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach where patients and clinicians share evidence and patients are supported to deliberate options resulting in preference-based informed decisions. The aim of this study was to describe community pharmacists' perceptions and awareness of SDM within their provision of general diabetes management [including Ontario's MedsCheck for Diabetes (MCD) programme], and potential challenges of implementing SDM within community pharmacy.

METHODS

This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of community pharmacists. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

KEY FINDINGS

We conducted 16 interviews. Six participants were male, and nine were certified diabetes educators. When providing a MCD, participants used aspects of a patient-centred approach focusing on providing education. Variation was evident in participants' description and use of SDM, as well as in their perceived level of training in SDM. Participants also highlighted challenges surrounding implementing a SDM approach in practice.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists are well positioned to apply SDM within community settings; however, implementation barriers exist. Pharmacists will require additional training as well as perceived patient and physician barriers should be addressed to encourage uptake.

Community Pharmacists' Perspectives of a Decision Aid for Managing Type 2 Diabetes in Ontario

OBJECTIVES

Decision aids are tools designed to help patients make choices about their health care. We explored pharmacists' perceptions of an evidence-based diabetes decision aid developed by the Mayo Clinic, Diabetes Medication Choice (DMC). Using DMC as a reference, we aimed to explore pharmacists' perspectives on decision aids, their place in a community pharmacy setting and the implementing of a decision aid, such as DMC, in Ontario.

METHODS

We used semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of community pharmacists from Ontario. We applied a thematic analysis to the data.

RESULTS

We conducted 16 interviews with pharmacists, of whom 9 were certified diabetes educators, and 10 were female. Three themes emerged from the data: pharmacists' knowledge and awareness of decision aids; pharmacists' perceptions of the DMC decision aids, and implementation of the DMC decision aids in Ontario pharmacies. Participants discussed their limited experience with and training in the use of decision aids. Although many participants agreed that the DMC decision aids may contribute to patient-centred care, all agreed that significant changes were needed to be made to implement this tool in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists felt that the use of decision aids in community pharmacies in Ontario may improve patient-centred care. Modifications, however, are needed to improve the applicability to their context and fit into their workflow. Empirical data concerning the impact of decision aids in community pharmacy is needed.