How pharmacists check the appropriateness of drug therapy? Observations in community pharmacy

Community pharmacists' decision-making patterns in clinical prescription checking: A simulation-based study

Background

Community pharmacists (CPs) make a significant number of decisions on the clinical appropriateness of prescriptions daily to ensure safe and effective use of medications, in a process known as "clinical checking". The process is complex and is affected by multiple factors in practice. This study aimed to investigate the cognitive processes involved in clinical prescription checking by CPs.

Method

This qualitative study employed a purposive sampling technique to recruit a diverse sample from the population of CPs in England. Engaging in Zoom interviews, participants clinically checked three simulated prescriptions, providing concurrent verbal accounts of their thoughts. The participants' commentaries during the task were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and underwent deductive thematic analysis based on Klein's recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) model.

Results

Twelve CPs from diverse backgrounds and varied working conditions were recruited and completed the online checking task. Making decisions on the clinical appropriateness of prescriptions appeared to be a multi-staged procedure whereby several levels of concerns exist, and pharmacists vary in their ability to recognise and resolve those concerns. CPs behaved in a manner similar to that described by the RPD model; they mostly engaged in pattern-recognition during clinical checking, but adopted a more analytical approach when they recognised an atypical situation. Participants showed more consistency when processing cues and expectancies; however, their subsequent actions exhibited substantial variability, coupled with a degree of hesitancy.

Conclusion

Clinical checking of prescriptions is a multifaceted process in which pharmacists employ a blend of pattern recognition and analytical thinking when making decisions. The process differs notably among pharmacists, underscoring the need to understand the factors driving these variations and any hesitancy in decision- making, as well as their potential impact on patient safety.

Protocols versus practice: unravelling clinical checking variations in community pharmacies in England-a multi-method study

BACKGROUND

Standardisation, a widely accepted concept for risk management, entails designing and implementing task-specific operating procedures. In community pharmacies, Standardised Operating Procedures (SOPs) are a mandatory requirement and are recognised as essential for upholding safety and quality.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate community pharmacists' (CPs) compliance with SOPs when checking prescriptions, and the reasons for variations between standardised protocols and practice.

METHOD

Eight sets of SOPs underwent hierarchical task analysis (HTA) to generate a normative description of clinical checking execution as per protocols. Subsequently, twelve CPs were engaged in a simulated clinical checking exercise, verbalising their thoughts while checking virtual prescriptions. Transcribed data underwent content analysis, aligned with a descriptive model to uncover engagement patterns, and disparities between SOPs and CPs' practices. Finally, a focus group discussion took place to contextualise the observed variations.

RESULTS

HTA aided in constructing a clinical checking model with six primary subtasks and 28 lower subtasks. CPs often omitted subtasks during checks, diverging from prescribed protocols. These deviations, observed in controlled environment, reveal an ingrained aspect within the professional culture of pharmacists, where there may be a tendency not to strictly adhere to protocols, despite variations in work conditions. Contributing factors to this culture include the exercise of professional judgment, reliance on others, and prioritisation of patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights ongoing deviations from SOPs during clinical prescription checks in community pharmacies, suggesting a cultural tendency. Future research should delve into risk management strategies for these deviations and address the delicate balance between flexibility and stringent compliance.

Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes Demonstrated by Pharmacy Students When Making Therapeutic Decisions

Objective. To characterize the types of cognitive and metacognitive processes demonstrated by third-year pharmacy students during a therapeutic reasoning activity.Methods. A qualitative, descriptive study following a think-aloud protocol was used to analyze the cognitive (analytical) and metacognitive processes observed by third-year pharmacy students as they completed a 25-minute therapeutic reasoning activity. Using a deductive codebook developed from literature about reasoning, two independent coders characterized processes from students' audio-recorded, transcribed think-aloud episodes while making therapeutic decisions about simulated clinical cases.Results. A total of 40 think-aloud episodes were transcribed among the cohort. Categorization of the think-aloud transcriptions revealed a series of cognitive analytical and metacognitive processes demonstrated by students during the therapeutic decision-making activity. A total of 1792 codes were categorized as analytical processes, falling into six major themes: 69% gathering information (1232/1792), 13% processing information (227/1792), 7% making assessments (133/1792), 1% synthesizing information (19/1792), 7% articulating evidence (117/1792), and 4% making a recommendation (64/1792). In comparison to gathering information, a much lower frequency of processing and assessment was observed for students, particularly for those that were unable to resolve the case. Students' movement between major analytical processes co-occurred commonly with metacognitive processes. Of the 918 codes categorized as metacognitive processes, two major themes arose: 28% monitoring for knowledge or emotions (257/918) and 72% controlling the planning of next steps or verification of correct information (661/918). Sequencing the codes and co-occurrences of processes allowed us to propose an integrated cognitive/metacognitive model of therapeutic reasoning for students.Conclusion. This study categorizes the cognitive (analytical) and metacognitive processes engaged during pharmacy students' therapeutic reasoning process. The findings can inform current instructional practices and further research into educational activities that can strengthen pharmacy students' therapeutic reasoning skills.

Clinical reasoning by pharmacists: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency for pharmacists, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity that complicates teaching and assessment. This scoping review was conducted to identify, map, and examine evidence on used cognitive processes and their conceptualization of clinical reasoning by pharmacists.

METHODS

In March 2021, seven databases were searched for relevant primary research studies. Included were studies that examined cognitive processes in pharmacists while addressing a clinical scenario in a pharmacy-related setting. Using descriptive analysis, study characteristics, conceptualizations, operationalizations, and key findings were mapped, summarized, and examined. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

From 2252 abstracts, 17 studies were included that examined clinical reasoning in the context of forming a diagnosis (n = 9) or determining medication appropriateness (n = 4). Most studies conceptualized clinical reasoning as a context-dependent cognitive process whereby pharmacists apply and integrate knowledge and clinical experience to interpret available clinical data. Different terms labelled pharmacists' reasoning that showed analytical and intuitive approaches to clinical scenarios, either separately or combined. Medication review studies reported a predominance of analytical reasoning. The majority of diagnosis-forming studies in primary care identified no distinct cognitive reasoning pattern when addressing self-care scenarios.

IMPLICATIONS

This overview reflects a small but growing body of research on clinical reasoning by pharmacists. It is recommended that this competence be taught by explicating and reflecting on clinical reasoning as separate stage of the clinical decision-making process with transparent cognitive processes.

Including the Reason for Use on Prescriptions Sent to Pharmacists: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In North America, although pharmacists are obligated to ensure prescribed medications are appropriate, information about a patient's reason for use is not a required component of a legal prescription. The benefits of prescribers including the reason for use on prescriptions is evident in the current literature. However, it is not standard practice to share this information with pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to characterize the research on how including the reason for use on a prescription impacts pharmacists.

METHODS

We performed an interdisciplinary scoping review, searching literature in the fields of health care, informatics, and engineering. The following databases were searched between December 2018 and January 2019: PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and EMBASE.

RESULTS

A total of 3912 potentially relevant articles were identified, with 9 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. The studies used different terminology (eg, indication, reason for use) and a wide variety of study methodologies, including prospective and retrospective observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and qualitative interviews and focus groups. The results suggest that including the reason for use on a prescription can help the pharmacist catch more errors, reduce the need to contact prescribers, support patient counseling, impact communication, and improve patient safety. Reasons that may prevent prescribers from adding the reason for use information are concerns about workflow and patient privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to understand how the reason for use information should be provided to pharmacists. In the limited literature to date, there is a consensus that the addition of this information to prescriptions benefits patient safety and enables pharmacists to be more effective. Future research should use an implementation science or theory-based approach to improve prescriber buy-in and, consequently, adoption.

The patient pathway in cardiovascular care: A position paper from the International Pharmacists for Anticoagulation Care Taskforce (iPACT)

BACKGROUND

This position paper highlights the opportunistic integral role of the pharmacist across the patient pathway utilizing cardiovascular care as an example. The paper aims to highlight the potential roles that pharmacists worldwide can have (or already have) to provide efficient patient care in the context of interprofessional collaboration.

METHODS

It results from a literature review and experts seeking advice to identify existing interventions and potential innovative interventions. We developed a conceptual framework highlighting seven critical phases in the patient pathway and for each of those listed some of the initiatives identified by our experts worldwide.

RESULTS

Existing pharmacists' interventions in each of these phases have been identified globally. Various examples in the area of prevention and self-management were found to exist for long; the contribution for early detection and subsequently to timely diagnosis were also quite clear; integration of care was perhaps one of the areas needing greater development, although interventions in secondary care were also quite common. Tertiary care and end of life interventions were found to often be left for other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the findings, we can argue that much has been done but globally consider that pharmacists are still an untapped resource potentially useful for improved patient care.

Piloting the Describing and Evaluating community Pharmacy practice to Improve patients' Care and Treatment tool

OBJECTIVE

To pilot the Describing and Evaluating community Pharmacy practice to Improve patients' Care and Treatment (DEPICT) tool to determine its utility in collecting data about Australian community pharmacist activities and patient-related encounters.

METHODS

DEPICT tool was developed and tested. Two pharmacy students recruited study patients and collected data in four urban pharmacies.

KEY FINDINGS

Fourteen pharmacists completed 189 DEPICT forms. Pharmacists' evaluations indicated overall high levels of satisfaction and provided valuable recommendations for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists' feedback will be incorporated into future iterations of DEPICT that will include electronic collection of regional data in urban and rural settings.

Community pharmacists' and residents' decision making and unmet information needs when completing comprehensive medication reviews

OBJECTIVE

To (1) characterize community pharmacists' and community pharmacy residents' decision making and unmet information needs when conducting comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) as part of medication therapy management and (2) explore any differences between community pharmacists and community pharmacy residents in CMR decision making and unmet information needs.

DESIGN

Thirty-to 60-minute semistructured interviews framed using a clinical decision-making model (CDMM) were conducted with community pharmacists and residents.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from practice-based research networks and researchers' professional networks. Eligible participants had completed or supported the completion of at least 2 CMRs in the last 30 days.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Two researchers independently coded transcripts using a combination of inductive and deductive methods to identify themes pertaining to community pharmacists' and residents' decision making and unmet information needs in the provision of CMRs. Discrepancies among researchers' initial coding decisions were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants (8 pharmacists and 8 residents) were interviewed. Themes were mapped to 5 CDMM steps. Participants primarily used subjective information during "case familiarization"; objective information was secondary. Information used for "generating initial hypotheses" varied by medication therapy problem (MTP) type. During "case assessment," if information was not readily available, participants sought information from patients. Thus, patients' levels of self-management and health literacy influenced participants' ability to identify and resolve MTPs, as described under "identifying final hypotheses." Finally, participants described "decision-making barriers," including communication with prescribers to resolve MTPs. Although pharmacist and resident participants varied in the types of MTPs identified, both groups cited the use and need of similar information.

CONCLUSION

Community pharmacists and residents often rely primarily on patient-provided information for decision making during CMRs because of unmet information needs, specifically, objective information. Moreover, confidence in MTP identification and resolution is reduced by communication challenges with prescribers and limitations in patients' ability to convey accurate and necessary information.

Patients', Pharmacy Staff Members', and Pharmacy Researchers' Perceptions of Central Elements in Prescription Encounters at the Pharmacy Counter

Background: Studies suggest that the way pharmacy counselling takes place does not fully support patients in obtaining optimal medicine use. To understand the basis of current challenges in pharmacy counselling, we investigated which selected related cues, i.e., objects, sounds, or circumstances in prescription encounters, patients, and pharmacy staff notice, and how they interpret these cues. Pharmacy practice researchers’ cue orientation was also investigated to explore possible differences to those of staff and patients. Methods: Twelve focus group interviews representing 5 community pharmacies (staff and patients) and 2 universities (researchers) were conducted during 2017–2018 in Denmark. A total of 20 patients, 22 pharmacy staff, and 6 pharmacy researchers participated. A theoretical analysis based on cue orientation and social appraisal was conducted. Results: Pharmacy staff, patients and researchers noticed different selected related cues in prescription encounters. Staff particularly noticed ‘types of patients’. Patients were more divided and grouped into three overall categories: ‘types of staff’, medical content, and the situation around the encounter. Pharmacy researchers noticed multiple cues. Different emotions were integrated in the construction of the cues. Conclusion: Differences in the cue orientation between all three groups were identified. The identified types of cues and emotions can explain an underlying dissatisfaction with the encounters. Patients lack, in particular, more personal contact. Staff need to consider these aspects to provide relevant counselling.

Clinical decision-making: An essential skill for 21st century pharmacy practice

Clinical decision-making skills are recognized as a central component of professional competency but are under-developed in pharmacy compared to other health professions. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive understanding of how pharmacists can best develop and use therapeutic decision-making skills in clinical practice. The aims of this commentary are to define clinical decision-making in pharmacy practice, and to present a model for clinical decision-making that aligns with a philosophical framework for pharmacy practice. The model has utility in education programs for pharmacists and provides a framework for understanding patient-facing clinical services in practice.

Optimizing patient education of oncology medications: A descriptive survey of pharmacist-provided patient education in Canada

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cancer is increasing in Canada due to an aging and growing population. This frequently necessitates chemotherapy, which is a high-risk treatment, often given as a part of a complex regimen with serious side effects. A review of the evidence of pharmacy-provided patient education initiatives targeted to oncology patients revealed that minimal is known about this service.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the different models of patient education of oncology medications delivered by pharmacists to adult oncology patients in a hospital or cancer center in Canada.

METHODS

The study design was a descriptive online survey developed by the investigation team and was distributed to pharmacists who provided patient education to adult oncology patients. The primary outcome of this research project was to describe self-reported pharmacist-provided patient education of oncology medications across Canada. The survey data was analyzed quantitatively with Opinio survey software.

RESULTS

Sixty-four pharmacists completed the survey. Key findings of the study were that approximately 50% of pharmacists spend up to 25% of their time providing direct patient care and that not all adult oncology patients are receiving education by a pharmacist.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists provide patient education at the first treatment, change in therapy, and on request of another healthcare professional. Most cover administration, side effects, their prevention and management, and drug-interactions. Frequently used teaching methods include structured patient education delivery process, customized teaching for each patient, and repetition of key educational points.

Any questions? Yes, do pharmacists monitor medications at refill?

OBJECTIVES

To describe pharmacists' self-reported refill monitoring activities and test for demographic and work setting differences that contribute to variation.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional survey design. A 4-contact survey was mailed to 599 community pharmacists randomly selected from a list provided by the state board of pharmacy. Surveys were mailed in June and July 2013. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to characterize these data.

RESULTS

Of the 599 surveys mailed, 269 complete responses were received for a 44.9% response rate. Pharmacists reported reviewing the patient's medication profile for 40% of refills. Of the 29% of refills handed off, pharmacists asked 70% of patients if they had any questions and 23% a specific question about drug therapy. Pharmacists at mass merchandisers and those in smaller towns were least likely to examine the profile, whereas pharmacists working at independent stores, owners, and pharmacists with a BS Pharm degree were most likely to hand off refills to patients. Demographic and work-setting characteristics factors were not associated with the rate of asking specific questions about the patient's drug therapy, although pharmacists with a BS Pharm, at an independent store, or working in the smallest towns were least likely to ask "Any questions?" when handing off the prescription.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists reported reviewing patient profiles, handing off prescriptions, and asking medication-specific questions to fewer than one-half of patients picking up refills. Pharmacists were more likely to inquire if patients had any questions than to ask specific questions, and other researchers have reported that the former phrasing may inadvertently serve to reduce patient engagement.