Search

Background The safe provision of medicines administration is a fundamental challenge faced in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Many residents of LTCFs are frail older persons with multiple morbidities, and in addition to polypharmacy, are particularly at risk of harm due to concomitant disease and disability. One potential method to optimise medication safety and facilitate medicines administration within LTCFs is the introduction of technology. Objective This paper explores the barriers to long-term sustainability concerning the use of an electronic administration system (eMAR) in LTCFs. Methods Fifteen in depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with LTCF staff (9), eMAR service commissioners (2), members of the implementation team (2) and care home strategy managers (2) across three LTCF sites. The study participants were purposefully sampled and each interview audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Nvivo 11. In addition to interviews, observational notes were taken by the lead researcher from visits to the LCTFs as a form of data collection. The analysis process consisted of a two-stage process of thematic analysis then theoretical mapping. Results Barriers identified were split into four main overarching areas: structural, implementation team, system user and operational barriers. The adoption of eMAR within this setting was welcomed by top-level stakeholders, however, LTCF staff displayed concerns over its usability. The lack of co-development and on-going training need highlighted barriers to its sustainability, in addition to risks associated with current legislation. The themes identified throughout the framework highlight challenges faced when exploring the sustainability of eMAR in LTCF. Conclusions The use of technology in health care is evolving. Awareness of actors relating to its introduction can have significant impact on success and service sustainability.

This systematic review explores the international postgraduate education and training programmes designed to provide or develop knowledge or skills focused on enabling pharmacists to work in a general practice setting. Four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one (4,871) articles were identified from database searches of SCOPUS, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, IPA, Web of Science and ERIC. After removal of duplicates and article screening, seven articles were included. Educational content, setting, contact time and methods of assessment varied across all studies. There is paucity of published literature relating to the development and evaluation of education programmes directed at pharmacists entering into general practice. A combination of work and classroom-based education provided by general practitioners and pharmacists already working in primary care is deemed most beneficial coupled with systematic debriefing sessions at the completion of training courses. The findings suggest future training should focus on specific disease states.

ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents.DesignRetrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsThirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients).Main outcome measuresThe incidence of significant harm considered at least ‘probably avoidable’ and the nature of the safety incidents.ResultsThe rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines.ConclusionThere is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.

ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) at 26 weeks.MethodsPragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial in 46 English community pharmacies. 504 participants aged ≥14, identified in the pharmacy when presenting a prescription for a new medicine for predefined long-term conditions, randomised to receive NMS (n=251) or normal practice (n=253) (NMS intervention: 2 consultations 1 and 2 weeks after prescription presentation). Adherence assessed through patient self-report at 26-week follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis employed. National Health Service (NHS) costs calculated. Disease-specific Markov models estimating impact of non-adherence combined with clinical trial data to calculate costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY; NHS England perspective).ResultsUnadjusted analysis: of 327 patients still taking the initial medicine, 97/170 (57.1%) and 103/157 (65.6%) (p=0.113) patients were adherent in normal practice and NMS arms, respectively. Adjusted intention-to-treat analysis: adherence OR 1.50 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.44, p=0.095), in favour of NMS. There was a non-significant reduction in 26-week NHS costs for NMS: −£104 (95% CI −£37 to £257, p=0.168) per patient. NMS generated a mean of 0.04 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.13) more QALYs per patient, with mean reduction in lifetime cost of −£113.9 (−1159.4, 683.7). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was −£2758/QALY (2.5% and 97.5%: −38 739.5, 34 024.2. NMS has an 89% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY.ConclusionsAt 26-week follow-up, NMS was unable to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in adherence or reduction in NHS costs, which may be attributable to patient attrition from the study. Long-term economic evaluation suggested NMS may deliver better patient outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs than normal practice, but uncertainty around this finding is high.Trial registration numberNCT01635361, ISRCTN23560818, ISRCTN23560818, UKCRN12494.

© 2018 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL. Reconfiguration of the healthcare division of labour is becoming increasingly attractive in the context of increased patient demand and resource constraints. One example is the introduction of extended roles for pharmacists to provide patients additional support to manage their medicines, while also reducing work pressures experienced by other health professionals. Understanding how such policies are framed by those delivering and receiving care has been under-theorised. Using Goffman's frame theory, we examine one newly introduced community pharmacy service (New Medicines Service (NMS)) to illustrate how a policy intended to support patient medicine-taking through the extended roles of pharmacists is framed and where this deviates from its proposed aims. Three themes emerged: (i) the spatial-material artefacts; (ii) existing discursive culture and practice around medicine-taking; and (iii) the NMS interactions that shape and govern framing and subsequent interpretation of the NMS. Our study offers an explanatory and dynamic view of the framing process with important lessons for reconfiguring medicine management policy and practice. As well as illustrating framing as being variegated, complementary or conflicting, it also shows how this plurality and fragility had consequences for patient engagement and sense-making. The consequences for engagement and recommendations for implementing future initiatives are discussed.

Background The review was carried out review prior to evaluating and to inform our research on the clinical pharmacists in general practices pilot, a world leading initiative to improve health care delivery in England. Around 500 pharmacists are already working in general practice as part of the pilot, launched in July 2015 Objectives The review attempts to explain the how “clinical pharmacists in general practices” is being implemented, what works well, what does not work so well and everything in-between. Methods This realist review was conducted to the RAMESES standards. Studies were identified by searching three databases, Medline, Embase and Scopus. Additional papers were gathered from reference lists, Google searches and via the find similar citations feature. Results A total of 83 papers and articles were initially identified from Medline (19), Embase (31) and Scopus (32). With close reading, the final review consisted of of 43 papers relating to 38 studies. Most of the research was undertaken in the field of pharmacy practice and over half of the studies investigated the perspectives of different stakeholders using questionnaires or qualitative methods. Conclusion The pharmacist in general practices initiative is still at an early stage of implementation, further research and more in-depth findings are still required. However, from this small number of studies, the common barriers and facilitators to the implementation can be identified. The review also lists mechanisms that will be needed to ensure the effective implementation of this initiative.

Background The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Methods We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients’ non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon. Results NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00–0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of −£144 (95% CI −769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) −£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Conclusions Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494). Funding Department of Health Policy Research Programme. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0554-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Community pharmacies are increasingly commissioned to deliver new, complex health interventions in response to the growing demands on family doctors and secondary health care services. Little is known about how these complex interventions are being accommodated and translated into the community pharmacy setting and whether their aims and objectives are realized in practice. The New Medicine Service (NMS) is a complex medicine management intervention that aims to support patients' adherence to newly prescribed medicines for a long-term condition. Objective This study explores the recent implementation of the NMS in community pharmacies across England. It also seeks to understand how the service is becoming manifest in practice and what lessons can be learned for future service implementation. Methods Structured, organizational ethnographic observations and in situ workplace interviews with pharmacists and support staff were undertaken within 23 English community pharmacies. Additionally, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 47 community pharmacists and 11 general practitioners (GPs). Observational and interview data were transcribed and analyzed thematically and guided by Damschroder's consolidated framework for implementation research. Results The NMS workload had been implemented and absorbed into pharmacists' daily routines alongside existing responsibilities with no extra resources and little evidence of reduction in other responsibilities. Pharmacists were pragmatic, simplifying, and adapting the NMS to facilitate its delivery and using discretion to circumvent perceived non-essential paperwork. Pharmacist understanding of the NMS was found to impact on what they believed should be achieved from the service. Despite pharmacists holding positive views about the value of the NMS, not all were convinced of its perceived benefits and necessity, with reports that many consultations did not identify any problems with the patients' medicines. GPs were generally supportive of the initiative but were unaware of the service or potential benefits. Poorly developed existing pharmacist-GP relationships impeded implementation. Conclusions This study identifies the multifaceted and complex processes involved in implementing a new community pharmacy service in England. Community pharmacy workflow, infrastructure, and public and professional relationships all affect NMS implementation. Greater prior engagement with the pharmacy workforce and GPs, robust piloting and a phased rollout together with ongoing support and updates, are potentials strategies to ensure future implementation of pharmacy services meet their intended aims in practice.

Community pharmacists play a growing role in the delivery of primary healthcare. This has led many to consider the changing power of the pharmacy profession in relation to other professions and patient groups. This paper contributes to these debates through developing a Foucauldian analysis of the changing dynamics of power brought about by extended roles in medicines management and patient education. Examining the New Medicine Service, the study considers how both patient and pharmacist subjectivities are transformed as pharmacists seek to survey patient's medicine use, diagnose non-adherence to prescribed medicines, and provide education to promote behaviour change. These extended roles in medicines management and patient education expand the 'pharmacy gaze' to further aspects of patient health and lifestyle, and more significantly, established a form of 'pastoral power' as pharmacists become responsible for shaping patients' self-regulating subjectivities. In concert, pharmacists are themselves enrolled within a new governing regime where their identities are conditioned by corporate and policy rationalities for the modernisation of primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the New Medicine Service (NMS), a national community pharmacy service to support medicines-taking in people starting a new medicine for a long-term condition, compared with normal practice.METHODS: Pragmatic patient-level parallel randomised controlled trial, in 46 community pharmacies in England. Patients 1:1 block randomisation stratified by drug/disease group within each pharmacy. 504 participants (NMS: 251) aged 14 years and over, identified in the pharmacy on presentation of a prescription for asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes or an anticoagulant/antiplatelet agent. NMS intervention: One consultation 7-14 days after presentation of prescription followed by another 14-21 days thereafter to identify problems with treatment and provide support if needed. Controls received normal practice. Adherence, defined as missing no doses without the advice of a medical professional in the previous 7 days, was assessed through patient self-report at 10 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis was employed, with outcome adjusted for recruiting pharmacy, NMS disease category, age, sex and medication count. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS) was collected.RESULTS: At 10 weeks, 53 patients had withdrawn and 443 (85%) patients were contacted successfully by telephone. In the unadjusted analysis of 378 patients still taking the initial medicine, 61% (95% CI 54% to 67%) and 71% (95% CI 64% to 77%) patients were adherent in the normal practice and NMS arms, respectively (p=0.04 for difference). In the adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the OR for increased adherence was 1.67 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.62; p=0.027) in favour of the NMS arm. There was a general trend to reduced NHS costs, albeit, statistically non-significant, for the NMS intervention: saving £21 (95% CI -£59 to £100, p=0.128) per patient.CONCLUSIONS: The NMS significantly increased the proportion of patients adhering to their new medicine by about 10%, compared with normal practice.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov trial reference number NCT01635361 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361). Current Controlled trials: trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494).