General practice pharmacists in Australia: A systematic review

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary healthcare practitioners regarding pharmacist clinics: a cross-sectional study in Shanghai

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist clinics offer professional pharmaceutical services that can improve public health outcomes. However, primary healthcare staff in China face various barriers and challenges in implementing such clinics. To identify existing problems and provide recommendations for the implementation of pharmacist clinics, this study aims to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pharmacist clinics among primary healthcare providers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey based on the Knowledge-Attitude-Practice (KAP) model, was conducted in community health centers (CHCs) and private hospitals in Shanghai, China in May, 2023. Descriptive analytics and the Pareto principle were used to multiple-answer questions. Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression models were employed to identify factors associated with the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pharmacist clinics.

RESULTS

A total of 223 primary practitioners participated in the survey. Our study revealed that most of them had limited knowledge (60.1%, n = 134) but a positive attitude (82.9%, n = 185) towards pharmacist clinics, with only 17.0% (n = 38) having implemented them. The primary goal of pharmacist clinics was to provide comprehensive medication guidance (31.5%, n = 200), with medication education (26.3%, n = 202) being the primary service, and special populations (24.5%, n = 153) identified as key recipients. Logistic regression analysis revealed that education, age, occupation, position, work seniority, and institution significantly influenced their perceptions. Practitioners with bachelor's degrees, for instance, were more likely than those with less education to recognize the importance of pharmacist clinics in medication guidance (aOR: 7.130, 95%CI: 1.809-28.099, p-value = 0.005) and prescription reviews (aOR: 4.675, 95% CI: 1.548-14.112, p-value = 0.006). Additionally, practitioners expressed positive attitudes but low confidence, with only 33.3% (n = 74) feeling confident in implementation. The confidence levels of male practitioners surpassed those of female practitioners (p-value = 0.037), and practitioners from community health centers (CHCs) exhibited higher confidence compared to their counterparts in private hospitals (p-value = 0.008). Joint physician-pharmacist clinics (36.8%, n = 82) through collaboration with medical institutions (52.0%, n = 116) emerged as the favored modality. Daily sessions were preferred (38.5%, n = 86), and both registration and pharmacy service fees were considered appropriate for payment (42.2%, n = 94). The primary challenge identified was high outpatient workload (30.9%, n = 69).

CONCLUSIONS

Although primary healthcare practitioners held positive attitudes towards pharmacist clinics, limited knowledge, low confidence, and high workload contributed to the scarcity of their implementation. Practitioners with diverse sociodemographic characteristics, such as education, age, and institution, showed varying perceptions and practices regarding pharmacist clinics.

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines.

AIM

To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument.

METHOD

Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.

Pharmacists' perceptions and delivery of health behaviour change recommendations: Mapping the COM-B model

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are trusted and accessible healthcare professionals who are well-positioned to deliver brief health behaviour change technique-based interventions for chronic health conditions. However, little is known about the factors influencing pharmacists' use of behaviour change techniques and their capacity to deliver these interventions within community pharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

This study employed the COM-B model to explore the factors that explain pharmacists' delivery of behaviour change techniques in practice. A secondary objective was to ascertain whether capability, opportunity, and motivation are associated with and explain significant variance in the use of behaviour change techniques during patient interactions.

METHODS

Two-hundred and eleven Australian pharmacists (mean age = 36.1, SD = 10.7) completed a survey on their capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver behaviour change techniques, and their delivery and frequency of use in practice.

RESULTS

Most pharmacists (91.3%) use behaviour change techniques during patient interactions. Results from a simple linear regression showed that a composite COM score was associated with pharmacists' behaviour change technique use F(1,195) = 47.12, β = 0.44, 95 % CI [0.09, 0.16], p < .001, and their frequency of use (F(1,198) = 44.19, β = 0.43, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.06], p < .001). While capability, opportunity, and motivation were individually associated with the range and frequency of behaviour change technique used, motivation was the only significant variable in the composite model for range (β = 0.35, 95 % CI [0.11, 0.41], p < .001) and frequency of behaviour change technique use (β = 0.22, 95 % CI [0.01, 0.09], p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist motivation was the most important construct explaining behaviour change technique use. Interventions should seek to foster pharmacist motivation and may benefit from adopting COM-B as a behaviour change framework, to understand the factors influencing the delivery of behaviour change interventions.

Integration and impact of pharmacists in general practice internationally: A rapid review

OBJECTIVE

English general practices have been facing ongoing pressures, arising from complicated health care needs and the recent pandemic. To overcome these pressures and reduce the workload of general practitioners, there have been extensive attempts to integrate pharmacists into general practices. A number of literature reviews, often systematic, have partially explored the topic of general practice-based pharmacists (GPBPs) internationally. Our aim was to further explore the employment/integration models of GPBPs and their actual activities and impact, concepts that have not been thoroughly investigated by previous reviews.

METHODS

Two databases were searched from inception to June 2021 for studies published in the English language. Results were independently screened by two reviewers to establish eligibility for inclusion. Original research studies, or protocols where results had not been released at the time of search, that reported on services provided by pharmacists with some sort of integration into general practices were included. The studies were analysed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Searches identified 3206 studies in total, of which 75 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of participants involved and methodologies employed. Integration of pharmacists into general practices has occurred in several countries, with funds originating from multiple sources. Several employment models for GPBPs were described - for example, part-time and full-time work and/or coverage of multiple or single practices. GPBP activities, with some exceptions, were comparable between different countries, with medication reviews being the most common task globally. GPBP impact was identified through both observational and/or interventional research methods, by pursuing a large variety of measures (e.g. activity volume, contact with patients, perceptions/experiences, and patient outcomes). Independent, quantifiable outcomes from GPBP activities were all positive but were of varying statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that GPBP services can lead to positive, quantifiable outcomes, mainly in relation to medication use. This shows the usefulness of GPBP services. The findings of this review can help policy makers decide how best to implement and fund GPBP services, and how to identify and measure GPBP impact.

Interprofessional collaboration between prescribers, managers, nursing staff and on-site pharmacists within residential aged care facilities: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

A new on-site pharmacist (OSP) intervention within residential aged care facilities (RACFs) is being investigated to help improve medication management. Interprofessional collaboration amongst prescribers, nursing staff and pharmacists is critical to improving RACF medication management.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the extent of interprofessional collaboration and the nature of the working relationships between OSPs and prescribers, managers and nursing staff.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was undertaken within the context of a 12-month cluster randomised controlled trial. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with data analysed using framework analysis, and a survey based upon the Physician-Pharmacist Collaboration Index (PPCI) was distributed at two time points (T1 at 3 months and T2 at 9 months after OSP commencement) across seven intervention RACFs.

RESULTS

The qualitative data (n = 33 interviews) findings related to the processes supportive of these relationships e.g. on-site proximity, OSP personality and perceived (or beneficial) benefits of OSPs working with health care team members (such as OSPs being trusted and providing reassurance to RACF health care team members). The PPCI survey mean scores at T1 (n = 33) and T2 (n = 19) suggested that OSPs were able to establish positive working relationships at 3 months and that positive relationships also existed at 9 months. The integrated findings suggested that the working relationships between OSPs and health care team members were generally positive.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to explore interprofessional collaboration between OSPs and health-care team members in RACFs. The findings suggest that OSPs can positively contribute to interprofessional collaborative care within RACFs.

Evaluating the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in the Australian general practice setting: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have been co-located in general practice teams to support the quality use of medicines and optimise patient health outcomes. Evidence of the impact of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices is sparse.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices.

METHOD

A prospective observational study was conducted in eight general practices in the Australian Capital Territory, where each general practice employed a pharmacist on a part-time basis for 18 months. A recommended, but flexible, list of activities was provided for pharmacists. Descriptive information on general practice pharmacist-led activities, collected with an online diary, was analysed. The potential clinical, economic, and organisational impact of pharmacist-led clinical activities was evaluated using the CLinical Economic Organisational (CLEO) tool, with a modified economic dimension.

RESULTS

Nine pharmacists reported 4290 activities over 3918.5 work hours in general practice. Medication management services were the primary clinical activity of pharmacists. In medication reviews, 75% of the pharmacists' recommendations were fully accepted by general practitioners. Conducting clinical audits, updating patients' medical records, and providing information to patients and staff were other major activities of pharmacists. Of 2419 clinical activities, around 50% had the potential for a moderate or major positive clinical impact on patients. Sixty-three per cent of activities had the potential to decrease healthcare costs. Almost all the pharmacist-led clinical activities had a positive organisational impact.

CONCLUSION

Most pharmacist-led clinical activities in general practice had the potential for a positive impact on patients and reduction in healthcare costs, supporting the expansion of this model in Australia.

Sick day management in people with chronic kidney disease: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Use of certain medications during an acute illness may put patients at an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of developing superimposed AKI. The aim of this scoping review is to collate and characterise existing evidence on sick day management considerations and practices during acute illness in people with CKD.

METHODS

We searched Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, Scopus, Google Scholar and grey literature sources. We followed the methodological framework for scoping reviews, while information was extracted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Findings are presented thematically.

RESULTS

Ten studies and seven guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Studies were targeted at patients, general practitioners, pharmacists, and nurses. The major themes identified included development and feasibility testing of a sick day management protocol, current practice of temporary medication discontinuation, and outcomes. Most guidelines provided recommendations for sick day management largely based on expert consensus. A digital intervention was deemed highly acceptable and easy to use, whereas patient handouts were more effective when provided along with dialogue with a health professional. While there is little evidence on the impact of sick day protocols on outcomes, a single randomised trial reported no significant association between sick day protocols and change in kidney function, AKI incidents or risk of hospitalisation.

CONCLUSION

The nascent literature on sick day management in patients with CKD revealed the limited available evidence to provide guidance on implementation and on outcomes. Future research needs to clarify sick day recommendations and assess their impact on clinical outcomes including prevention of superimposed AKI or hospitalisations, as well as to address barriers to implementation.

Cluster-randomised trial of the Effectiveness of Quality Incentive Payments in General Practice (EQuIP-GP): Prescribing of medicines outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Effectiveness of Quality Incentive Payments in General Practice (EQuIP-GP) study investigated whether targeted financial incentives promoting access to a preferred general practitioner, post-hospitalisation follow-up and longer consultations, increase patient-perceived relational continuity in primary care. Secondary outcomes included the use of medicines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether introducing a general practice-level service model incorporating enrolment and continuous and graded quality improvement incentives influenced the total prescriptions written and potentially inappropriate prescribing of medicines.

METHODS

A 12-month cluster-randomised controlled trial, whereby participating patients within intervention practices were offered enrolment with a preferred general practitioner, a minimum of three longer appointments, and review within seven days of hospital admission or emergency department attendance. Control practice patients received usual care. Differences between intervention and control groups pre-post trial for total prescriptions were analysed, as an indicator of polypharmacy, along with prescriptions for four groups of drugs known to have common quality of medicines issues: antibiotics, benzodiazepines, opioids and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

RESULTS

A total of 774 patients, aged 18-65 years with a chronic illness or aged over 65 years, from 34 general practices in metropolitan, regional and rural Australia participated. The mean number of medicine prescriptions per month at baseline was 4.19 (SD 3.27) and 4.34 (SD 3.75) in the control and intervention arms, respectively, with no significant between-group differences in changes pre-post trial and also no significant between-group or within-group differences of prescription rates for antibiotics, benzodiazepines, opioids or PPIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Total prescribing volume and the use of key medicines were not influenced by quality-linked financial incentives for offering longer consultations and early post-hospital review for enrolled patients.

Interprofessional collaboration within general practice teams following the inclusion of non-dispensing pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) since 2016. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness are key considerations in providing high-quality patient care. These concepts have not been well studied following the inclusion of a pharmacist in general practice teams.

METHODS

A mixed methods study was conducted to explore collaboration between pharmacists and health professionals in eight general practices in the ACT, where pharmacists were included in their teams. A validated survey instrument was adapted and utilised to assess the changes in interprofessional collaboration over time following the addition of a pharmacist. Another validated survey was utilised to explore team effectiveness at the end of the study. Semi-structured interviews, with a thematic analysis, were conducted with a purposeful sample of general practice staff members to understand the factors influencing the development of interprofessional collaboration.

RESULTS

In total, 56 and 41 participants completed the baseline and follow-up survey, including 26 who completed both surveys to assess the change in collaboration over time. Interprofessional collaboration scores were high initially and did not change over time. Team effectiveness was also high at the end of the study. Twenty-one individuals participated in interviews, which generated four main interrelated themes related to interprofessional collaboration: professional working relationships, trust, commitment to collaboration, and barriers to collaboration. Trust was integral to professional working relationships and commitment to collaboration. The barriers to collaboration included not having a role description for pharmacists, inadequate interest to initiate working relationships, lack of dedicated time for interaction, lack of utilisation, and poor awareness of pharmacist-led activities in general practice.

CONCLUSION

Interprofessional collaboration was initially high and not influenced by the addition of a pharmacist, perhaps reflecting the inherent nature of the general practices willing to include a pharmacist within their team. Introducing a clear job description for pharmacists, and dedicating time to interact with pharmacists, could be beneficial in improving trust and professional working relationships and enhancing collaboration between the pharmacists and other general practice team members.

Enhanced primary care after hospitalization: General practitioner, pharmacist and patient feedback from the REMAIN HOME trial

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist and general practitioner (GP) collaborative models of care are continuing to evolve in the Australian primary care setting. The REMAIN HOME study investigated whether a pharmacist integrated into 14 different primary care teams in general practice (the "practice pharmacist model") reduces readmission to hospital for patients prescribed five or more long term medicines or high risk comorbidities. The aim of this paper is to describe the attitudes of GPs, patients, and practice pharmacists towards this model of pharmacist and GP collaboration.

METHODS

To explore the views and opinions about the model of care (pharmacist integration into general practice), participating GPs were invited to complete a survey that included the 13-item validated Attitudes Toward Collaboration Instrument for GPs (ATCI-GP) one month after the pharmacist had been integrated into the practice. Survey instruments were also created for patients and pharmacist participating in the intervention. These were deployed after the initial consultation and at the end of the intervention period respectively, to elicit each stakeholders' views and experiences of the service. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 48 GPs, 43/101 patients (43%) and 11/13 practice pharmacists (85%) completed the survey. The majority of GPs strongly agreed or agreed with all statements of the ATCI-GP, indicating support for the practice-integrated pharmacist model. Most patients agreed that there was a role for a pharmacist in their general practice (n = 28, 76%), and that they would like to see the pharmacist again (n = 34, 79%). Pharmacists indicated that they enjoyed the role (n = 11, 91%) and found the position professionally satisfying (n = 9, 82%). Most pharmacists agreed that co-location (inside the general practice itself, rather than in a co-located pharmacy) was beneficial (n = 8, 73%) and all pharmacists (100%) acknowledged the benefits of having access to patient medical records. Free text comments from GPs were enthusiastic overall, although some concerns about the financial viability of the model in the current setting were raised. The primary limitation of the study is the anonymous nature of the survey, meaning clustering of responses across the 14 sites could not be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

A practice pharmacist model of care in the Australian primary care setting appears to be accepted by GPs, patients and practice pharmacists and provides promising evidence that this model of care is likely to be well accepted if implemented more broadly in the Australian healthcare setting, provided that it can be appropriately remunerated.

The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration.

METHODS

A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019139679.

Integration of pharmacist independent prescribers into general practice: a mixed-methods study of pharmacists' and patients' views

BACKGROUND

Since 2015, the National Health Service (NHS) has funded pharmacists to work in general practice (GP practice) to ease workload pressures. This requires pharmacists to work in new roles and be integrated effectively in GPs. Independent prescribing is a key part of the GP pharmacist role, but little is known about pharmacists' integration into GP practice as well as patients' perceptions and experiences of the care provided by GP pharmacists. This study aims to explore the perceptions of pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs) about their integration into GP practice and gain insight into patients' perceptions about the care provided to them by pharmacists.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study comprising semi-structured interviews with PIPs (n = 13) followed by questionnaire-based assessment of patients' (n = 77) evaluation of pharmacists' care was conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews and open comments of the survey were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Pharmacist independent prescribers reported undertaking a range of patient-facing and non-clinical roles. Lack of understanding about PIPs' clinical role and working beyond their clinical area of competence were some of the barriers to their integration into GP practice. Most patients were satisfied with the consultations they received from pharmacists and reported confidence in the pharmacist's recommendations about their health conditions. However, a few patients (14%) felt they would still need to consult a general practitioner after their appointment and 11% were not sure if a further consultation was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist independent prescribers provide a range of clinical services for the management of long-term conditions which appear to be recognised by patients. However, there is a need to address the barriers to PIPs' integration into GP practice to optimise their skill-mix and patient-centred care.

Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness of Pharmacists in General Practice: A Cross-National Survey

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.

Feasibility of a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model for patients with chronic disease(s) attending Australian general practices: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists working in general practices provide medication reviews with recommendations to general practitioners (GPs) to optimise medications. We describe a model where the pharmacist is empowered with increased responsibility to implement agreed recommendations through collaborative prescribing.

AIM

To assess a collaborative pharmacist prescribing model incorporating increased pharmacist responsibility, for patients with chronic diseases in general practice.

METHOD

This was a pre-test-post-test quasi experimental pilot study using a pharmacist embedded in three Australian general practices. A pharmaceutical care plan was developed with patients and their GP to identify drug related problems (DRPs). The pharmacist discussed recommendations to manage DRPs with the GP and implemented recommendations agreed by the GP and patient over the six-month study period. Outcome measures included acceptance and implementation rate of recommendations made by the pharmacist.

RESULTS

The pharmacist made 135 recommendations to optimise medicine use of which 126 (93.3%) were accepted by the GP. There were 105 (83.3%) implemented by the end of the study of which the pharmacist implemented 62 (49.3%).

CONCLUSION

Compared to other Australian studies using a general practice pharmacist model, this study suggested increased pharmacist responsibility through collaborative prescribing led to high acceptance and implementation rates of recommendations to manage DRPs.

Patients’ Opinions towards the Services of Pharmacists Based in General Practice

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services for patients. In Australia, pharmacists’ role in general practice has been slowly expanding. However, there is a paucity of research to explore patients’ opinions toward pharmacist-led services in general practice. This study aimed to assess patient awareness, perceived needs, and satisfaction with these services. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a purposeful sample of patients who visited six general practices in the Australian Capital Territory that included pharmacists in their team. The survey was informed by the literature and pre-tested. The survey was distributed to two samples: patients who had seen a pharmacist and those who had not seen a pharmacist. Of 100 responses received, 86 responses were included in the analysis: patients who had seen a pharmacist (n = 46) and patients who had not seen a pharmacist (n = 40). Almost all the patients who utilised pharmacist-led services were highly satisfied with those services. Among patients who had not seen a pharmacist, 50% were aware of the existence of general practice pharmacists. Patients who had visited the pharmacist rated higher scores for perceived needs. Patient satisfaction towards the pharmacist-led services in general practices was very high, and patients supported the expansion of these services. However, awareness of the availability of general practice pharmacist services could be improved.