Search

Background: Older housebound people are an under-researched group for whom achieving good primary health care can be resource intensive. Aims: To describe the characteristics and healthcare use of older (≥65 years) housebound people; explore clinician views on delivery of care to housebound people; and assess the feasibility of using a new network of healthcare professionals to deliver high quality research. Design & setting: Retrospective observational study of electronic GP records and clinician survey in England. Method: Clinical members of a new UK research network called the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) will collect the data. For part A, around 20 GP practices will be recruited and clinicians will identify 20 housebound and 20 non-housebound people, matched by age and gender (around 400 total in each group). Anonymised data will be collected on characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation decile), long-term conditions, prescribed medicines, quality of healthcare (via Quality Outcomes Framework targets), and continuity of care. Reports with benchmarked practice-level data will be provided to practices to identify areas for quality improvement and to enhance engagement. For part B, 2-4 clinicians will be recruited from around 50 practices in England (̴150 clinicians) to complete a survey about delivery of healthcare for housebound people. For part C, data will be collected to assess the feasibility of using the PACT network to deliver primary care research. Conclusion: Older housebound people are a neglected group both in terms of research and clinical care. Understanding the characteristics and use of primary healthcare of housebound people will help identify how to improve their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many UK GP practices now employ a practice pharmacist, but little is known about how GPs and pharmacists work together to optimise medications for complex patients with multimorbidity.Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on collaborative working within the context of optimising medications for patients with multimorbidity.Design and Setting: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the West of England, Northern England, and Scotland.Method: Thirteen GPs and 10 pharmacists were sampled from practices enrolled in the 3D trial (a complex intervention for people with multimorbidity). Participants' views on collaborative working were explored with interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Saturation of data was achieved with no new insights arising from later interviews.Results: GPs from surgeries that employed a pharmacist tended to value their expertise more than GPs who had not worked with one. Three key themes were identified: resources and competing priorities; responsibility; and professional boundaries. GPs valued pharmacist recommendations that were perceived to improve patient safety, as opposed to those that were technical and unlikely to benefit the patient. Pharmacists who were not known to GPs felt undervalued and wanted feedback from the GPs about their recommendations, particularly those that were not actioned.Conclusion: A good working relationship between the GP and pharmacist, where each profession understood the other's skills and expertise, was key. The importance of face-to-face meetings and feedback should be considered in future studies of interdisciplinary interventions, and by GP practices that employ pharmacists and other allied health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process.Aim: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK.Design and Setting: Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017.Method: Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically.Results: In total, 13 GPs and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPs and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPs, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPs, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work.Conclusion: Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]