Interventions performed by community pharmacists in one Canadian province: a cross-sectional study

Clinical and Organizational Impacts of Medical Ordering Settings on Patient Pathway and Community Pharmacy Dispensing Process: The Prospective ORDHOSPIVILLE Study

During the dispensing process of medical orders (MOs), community pharmacists (CPs) can manage drug-related problems (DRPs) by performing pharmacist interventions (PIs). There is little evidence that the PI rate is higher with MOs from hospitals (MOHs) than ambulatory (MOAs) settings, and their impact on the patient and community pharmacy is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to compare the MOH and MOA PI rates. The secondary objective was to describe PIs and their clinical and organizational impacts on patient and community pharmacy workflow. A total of 120 CPs participated in a prospective study. Each CP included 10 MOH and 10 MOA between January and June 2020. DRP and PI description and clinical and organizational impacts between MOH and MOA were assessed and compared. We analyzed 2325 MOs. PIs were significantly more frequent in MOH than in MOA (9.7% versus 4.7%; p < 0.001). The most reported PI was the difficulty of contacting hospital prescribers (n = 45; 52.2%). MOHs were associated with a longer dispensing process time and a greater impact on patient pathway and community pharmacy workflow than MOAs. Lack of communication between hospital and primary care settings partly explains the results. Implementation of clinical pharmacy activities at patient discharge could alleviate these impacts.

Patient Safety Culture in Handling Prescriptions and Interprofessional Collaboration Practices Amongst Community Pharmacists: An Investigative Simulated Patient Study from the United Arab Emirates

Background

Community pharmacists are in a unique position to identify drug therapy-related problems (DTRPs) in prescriptions and mitigate them by communicating with prescriber. This study assessed the ability of community pharmacists (CPs) to identify DTRPs in prescriptions, the level of interprofessional collaboration among physician and CPs in mitigating the identified DTRPs, and the existing safety culture practices among CPs.

Methods

Trained simulated patients (SPs), five final-year BSc Pharm female students, visited conveniently selected community pharmacies (n = 50) in Ajman emirate of the United Arab Emirates, with dummy prescriptions containing DTRPs (total 50 prescriptions with five different types of DTRPs categorized per the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Version 8) and assessed the DTRP-identifying ability of the CPs. SPs also observed the steps taken by the CPs to mitigate identified DTRPs and existing (if any) collaborative practices between CPs and physician. SPs documented their observations in a checklist immediately after leaving the pharmacy premises, which served as the data source. Statistical analyses were performed with chi-square at alpha = 0.05.

Results

Of the 50 respondents, 44% (n = 22) were able to identify the DTRPs. DTRP identification by pharmacists was associated with labeling [chi-square = 7.879, p value = 0.019], reconciliation [chi-square = 10.359, p value = 0.001], counseling standard [chi-square = 19.09, p = 0.000] and physician visit suggestion [chi-square = 31.15, p = 0.000]. The labeling standards for prescriptions with DTRPs were “low” in five (50%), “average“ in three (30%) and “good” in two (20%) of the cases with wrong dose. Average counseling time of the CPs was 80.38 ± 71.61 seconds. The counseling standard had no significant association with counseling time [chi-square = 34.79, p = 0.250] and use of drug information sources [chi-square = 2.86, p = 0.243]. Average time spent in dispensing is 74.4 ± 73.05 seconds. None (n = 0) of the CPs communicated with the physician, and only five out of 50 (10%) of CPs checked any DI sources. However, in 19 (38%) cases, the CPs recommended the SPs to consult their physician prior to taking the medications.

Conclusion

CPs were generally able to identify DTRPs and mitigate DTRPs by recommending physician consultation. Nevertheless, there were no professional collaborations between the SPs and physicians. The dispensing and counseling standards were not appreciable.

The Practice Guidelines for Multidose Drug Dispensing Need Revision-An Investigation of Prescription Problems and Interventions

Multidose drug dispensing (MDD) is an adherence aid used by one-third of patients receiving home care services in Norway. The system can increase patient safety by reducing dispensing errors and increase adherence, however it has also been criticised for unclear routines and distribution of responsibilities. We investigated prescription problems which pharmacists have detected, and the responsibilities they adopt regarding MDD. For two consecutive weeks, 11 pharmacies used a self-completion form to register prescription problems identified with MDD. Of the 4121 MDD prescriptions, problems were identified on 424 (11%). The most common issues were expired prescriptions (29%), drug shortages (19%), missing prescriber signatures (10%) and unclear/missing medication names or strengths (10%). Compared to ordinary prescriptions, the pharmacist took on additional responsibility for renewing MDD prescriptions. However, because these patients received their medications via the home care service, there was limited patient counselling during dispensing. To increase the efficiency and patient safety of the MDD system, the roles and responsibilities of the pharmacist, GP, and home care nurses in the MDD system should be clearly defined. This seems most urgent for the renewal of prescriptions and patient counselling, where the responsibilities and work practice seem to differ from ordinary prescriptions.

An exploration of clinical interventions provided by pharmacists within a complex asthma service

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists in Australia are accessible health care professionals, and their provision of clinical pharmacy interventions in a range of areas has been proven to improve patient outcomes. Individual clinical pharmacy interventions in the area of asthma management have been very successful. An understanding of the nature of these interventions will inform future pharmacy services. What we do not know is when pharmacists provide a complex asthma service, what elements of that service (interventions) they choose to deliver.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the scope and frequency of asthma-related clinical interventions provided by pharmacists to patients in an evidence-based complex asthma service.

METHODS

Pharmacists from 4 states/territories of Australia were trained in asthma management. People with asthma had 3 or 4 visits to the pharmacy. Guided by a structured patient file, the pharmacist assessed the patient's asthma and management and provided interventions where and when considered appropriate, based on their clinical decision making skills. The interventions were recorded in a checklist in the patient file. They were then analysed descriptively and thematically.

RESULTS

Pharmacists provided 22,909 clinical pharmacy interventions over the service to 570 patients (398 of whom completed the service). The most frequently delivered interventions were in the themes 'Education on asthma', 'Addressing trigger factors', 'Medications - safe and effective use' and 'Explore patient perspectives'. The patients had a high and ongoing need for interventions. Pharmacists selected interventions based on their assessment of perceived need then revisited and reinforced these interventions.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists identified a number of areas in which patients required interventions to assist with their asthma management. Many of these were perceived to require continuing reinforcement over the duration of the service. Pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement to assess patients and provide clinical pharmacy interventions across a range of asthma management needs.