What patient assessment skills are required by pharmacists prescribing systemic anti-cancer therapy? A consensus study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, pharmacist independent prescribers can prescribe for any condition within their clinical competence including systemic anti-cancer therapy. Competency frameworks have been developed but contain little detail on the patient assessment skills pharmacist independent prescribers require to prescribe systemic anti-cancer therapy with concern in the literature over current training on these skills. AIM: To gain consensus on the patient assessment skills required by pharmacist independent prescribers prescribing systemic anti-cancer therapy for genitourinary cancer (prostate and renal) and lung cancer across National Health Service Scotland. METHOD: Two phases were performed to generate patient assessment skill consensus. Initially, the Nominal Group Technique was performed within a local cancer network by discussion and participant ranking within genitourinary and lung cancer multi-disciplinary teams. Where consensus was achieved, patient assessment skills were carried forward to try to achieve national (National Health Service Scotland) consensus using a two-round Delphi questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 27 patient assessment skills, consensus was gained for 21 and 23 patient assessment skills in the genitourinary and lung Nominal Group Technique groups, respectively. Within the genitourinary and lung national groups, 13/21 and 18/23 patient assessment skills were agreed as required for a pharmacist independent prescriber to prescribe systemic anti-cancer therapy in genitourinary and lung cancer, respectively. Eight common patient assessment skills were identified as core skills. Reasons for not reaching consensus included pharmacist independent prescriber competence, knowledge, skills and the roles and responsibilities of pharmacist independent prescribers within the multi-disciplinary team. CONCLUSION: We identified the core and specific patient assessment skills required to prescribe systemic anti-cancer therapy within two tumour groups. Further work is necessary to develop patient assessment skill competency frameworks, training and assessment methods and to redefine the roles of pharmacist independent prescribers within the multi-disciplinary team.

Practising prioritisation: exploring variation in applying a clinical pharmacy risk stratification tool.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a risk stratification tool and explore the contributing factors to variation in practice by clinical pharmacists. METHODS: The quantitative phase was a prospective evaluation of adherence to the risk stratification tool. Patients were selected by convenience sampling from medical wards across two hospital sites. Researchers applied the risk stratification tool to each patient, documented the code, accessed health records in subsequent days, and recorded the code assigned by the pharmacist. These codes were compared. The kappa (κ) coefficient test was performed using SPSS software as a statistical measure of agreement. The qualitative phase was designed using focus groups with clinical pharmacists. One focus group was conducted at each of the two study sites. Participants were grouped to ensure a mix of experience levels. To augment the discussion, participants completed a short survey. Focus groups were recorded and a thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: The final cohort for quantitative analysis was 73. Researchers and pharmacists allocated the same code to 19 (26%) patients. The highest match rate was observed between researchers and rotational pharmacists. The κ coefficient was 0.039 (slight agreement) with p value=0.52 (not significant). Ten pharmacists participated in the focus groups: three from site 1 and seven from site 2. All participants reported using the principles of the risk stratification tool every day, but they rarely accessed the tool. Pharmacists reported using the tool as a workload management and communication system. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in application of the risk stratification tool exists among pharmacists. Focus group participants described multiple scenarios where non-patient factors were considered in assigning a priority code for the patient. A schedule of regular review of the criteria; training and peer review; tool validation; and research identifying the relationship between structured professional judgement and risk stratification tools is recommended.

A pilot study to assess the practicality, acceptability and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist complex intervention on patients with stroke in their own homes.

OBJECTIVE: To test the practicality, acceptability and feasibility of recruitment, data collection, blood pressure (BP) monitoring and pharmaceutical care processes, in order to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist complex intervention on patients with stroke in their own homes. METHODS: Patients with new stroke from acute, rehabilitation wards and a neurovascular clinic (NVC) were randomised to usual care or to an intervention group who received a home visit at 1, 3 and 6 months from a clinical pharmacist. Pharmaceutical care comprised medication review, medicines and lifestyle advice, pharmaceutical care issue (PCI) resolution and supply of individualised patient information. A pharmaceutical care plan was sent to the General Practitioner and Community Pharmacy. BP and lipids were measured for both groups at baseline and at 6 months. Questionnaires covering satisfaction, quality of life and medicine adherence were administered at 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 430 potentially eligible patients, 30 inpatients and 10 NVC outpatients were recruited. Only 33/364 NVC outpatients (9.1%) had new stroke. 35 patients completed the study (intervention=18, usual care=17). Questionnaire completion rates were 91.4% and 84.4%, respectively. BP and lipid measurement processes were unreliable. From 104 identified PCIs, 19/23 recommendations (83%) made to general practitioners were accepted. CONCLUSION: Modifications to recruitment is required to include patients with transient ischaemic attack. Questionnaire response rates met criteria but completion rates did not, which merits further analysis. Lipid measurements are not necessary as an outcome measure. A reliable BP-monitoring process is required.

Optimisation of secondary prevention of stroke: a qualitative study of stroke patients' beliefs, concerns and difficulties with their medicines.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to explore stroke patients' and carers' beliefs and concerns about medicines and identify the barriers to medication adherence for secondary stroke prevention. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured one-on-one interviews were conducted with 30 patients with diagnosis of stroke. Interviews were analysed using the framework approach. KEY FINDINGS: The study suggests that stroke patients' and carers' perceptions of their medicines may influence medicine-taking behaviour. In some cases when beliefs outweighed concerns, practical barriers prevented participants taking their medicines. Negative beliefs about a medicine were strong enough to prevent some participants starting a new medicine. Participants' actions were influenced by the perceived consequences of not taking the medicine and the impact of the adverse effect on their quality of life. Concerns lessened with time with no adverse effects. The importance of the role of the carer and of a medicine-taking routine was evident. Participants reported the inadequacy of information provision and the desire to have more written and verbal information. Some reported total lack of contact with their general practitioner or community pharmacist after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the difficulties stroke patients have adhering to secondary prevention strategies are potentially preventable with tailored information provision and appropriate monitoring and follow-up by primary healthcare professionals. We have designed an intervention addressing the identified barriers to medicine taking, the impact of which is currently being measured in a randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist-led home-based clinical medication review in stroke patients.