Impact of integrating pharmacists into primary care teams on health systems indicators: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that pharmacists integrated into primary care can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction, but their impact on healthcare systems is unclear. AIM: To identify the key impacts of pharmacists' integration into primary care on health system indicators, such as healthcare utilisation and costs. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of literature. METHOD: Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, the Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were examined, along with reference lists of relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published up until June 2018, which considered health system outcomes of the integration of pharmacists into primary care, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias for RCTs; the National Institute of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool was used for observational studies. Data were extracted from published reports and findings synthesised. RESULTS: Searches identified 3058 studies, of which 28 met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were of fair quality. Pharmacists in primary care resulted in reduced use of GP appointments and reduced emergency department (ED) attendance, but increased overall primary care use. There was no impact on hospitalisations, but some evidence of savings in overall health system and medication costs. CONCLUSION: Integrating pharmacists into primary care may reduce GP workload and ED attendance. However, further higher quality studies are needed, including research to clarify the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and the long-term impact on health system outcomes.

Examining Cost Measurements in Production and Delivery of Three Case Studies Using E-Learning for Applied Health Sciences: Cross-Case Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Report (2006) by the World Health Organization conveys that a significant increase is needed in global health care resourcing to meet the current and future demand for health professionals. Electronic learning (e-Learning) presents a possible opportunity to change and optimize training by providing a scalable means for instruction, thus reducing the costs for training health professionals and providing patient education. Research literature often suggests that a benefit of e-Learning is its cost-effectiveness compared with face-to-face instruction, yet there is limited evidence with respect to the comparison of design and production costs with other forms of instruction or the establishment of standards pertaining to budgeting for these costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential cost favorability of e-Learning in contrast to other forms of learning, there must first be an understanding of the components and elements for building an e-Learning course. Without first taking this step, studies lack the essential financial accounting rigor for course planning and have an inconsistent basis for comparison. This study aimed to (1) establish standard ingredients for the cost of e-Learning course production and (2) determine the variance instructional design has on the production costs of e-Learning courses. METHODS: This study made use of a cross-case method among 3 case studies using mixed methods, including horizontal budget variance calculation and qualitative interpretation of responses from course designers for budget variance using total quality management themes. The different implementation-specific aspects of these cases were used to establish common principles in the composition of budgets in the production and delivery of an applied health professional e-Learning course. RESULTS: A total of 2 case studies reported significant negative budget variances caused by issues surrounding underreporting of personnel costs, inaccurate resource task estimation, lack of contingency planning, challenges in third-party resource management, and the need to update health-related materials that became outdated during course production. The third study reported a positive budget variance because of the cost efficiency derived from previous implementation, the strong working relationship of the course project team, and the use of iterative project management methods. CONCLUSIONS: This research suggests that the delivery costs of an e-Learning course could be underestimated or underreported and identifies factors that could be used to better control budgets. Through consistent management of factors affecting the cost of course production, further research could be undertaken using standard economic evaluation methods to evaluate the advantages of using e-Learning.

What Aspects of Personal Care Are Most Important to Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: The overall quality of patient care is a function of the quality of both its technical and its nontechnical components. The purpose of this study was to identify the elements of nontechnical (personal) care that are most important to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the literature and interviewed patients and health professionals to identify elements of personal care pertinent to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer. We identified 143 individual elements relating to 10 aspects of personal care. Patients undergoing radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer completed a self-administered questionnaire in which they rated the importance of each element. The overall importance of each element was measured by the percentage of respondents who rated it as "very important." The importance of each aspect of personal care was measured by the mean importance of its elements. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients completed the questionnaire. The percentage of patients who rated each element "very important" ranged from 7% to 95% (mean 61%). The mean importance rating of the elements of each aspect of care varied significantly: "perceived competence of caregivers," 80%; "empathy and respectfulness of caregivers," 67%; "adequacy of information sharing," 67%; "patient centeredness," 59%; "accessibility of caregivers," 57%; "continuity of care," 51%; "privacy," 51%; "convenience," 45%; "comprehensiveness of services," 44%; and "treatment environment," 30% (P<.0001). Neither age nor education was associated with importance ratings, but the patient's health status was associated with the rating of some elements of care. CONCLUSIONS: Many different elements of personal care are important to patients undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, but the 3 aspects of care that most believe are most important are these: the perceived competence of their caregivers, the empathy and respectfulness of their caregivers, and the adequacy of information sharing.