ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since June 2021, patients with hemophilia A with antifactor VIII inhibitors and those with severe hemophilia A without antifactor VIII inhibitors treated with Hemlibra have had to choose between a community or hospital pharmacy. The French reference center for hemophilia developed the HEMOPHAR e-learning program for community pharmacists for dispensing emicizumab. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficiency and safety of this new care pathway by assessing the HEMOPHAR e-learning program. METHODS: The methodology is based on Kirkpatrick's model for evaluating the immediate reaction of trained community pharmacists (level 1), their level of acquired knowledge (level 2), and their professional practice after 3 months of dispensation (level 3). RESULTS: The HEMOPHAR e-learning program reached a large audience, with 67% (337/502) of the eligible community pharmacists following it. The immediate reaction was overall satisfying. High rates of engagement were reported with 63.5% (214/337) to 73.3% (247/337) of completed training modules, along with high rates of success with quizzes of 61.5% (174/337) to 95.7% (244/337). We observed that 83.9% (193/230) of the community pharmacists needed less than 2 attempts to pass the quiz of the module related to professional practice, while the other quizzes required more attempts. Advice on compliance and drug interactions were most frequently provided to patients by the community pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests ways to improve the training of community pharmacists and to optimize coordination with treatment centers. This study also reports on the feasibility of switching to a community pharmacy in a secure pharmaceutical circuit, including in the context of a rare bleeding disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05449197; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05449197. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/43091.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The healthcare pathway is at the heart of public health organization concerns, but communication between the various players can be an obstacle. This work, produced by a French transdisciplinary team, offers a methodological approach based on formalized consensus to elaborate a glossary of healthcare pathways. A two-steps procedure was elaborated, including a double rounded Delphi method to formalize expert consensus, and two groups of experts: a workgroup and a review group. Methods: The workgroup provided a list of words or expressions that, in their opinion, described, evaluated or compared the healthcare pathways for patients, caregivers or regulators. The review group checked this list and added or deleted words or expressions. Then, definitions were added by the workgroup based into account three dimensions: official, academic and from the field. The review group validated the definitions and provided complementary proposals if needed. Results: After pooling the list of words proposed by each of the six members of the working group, 417 words/expressions were ranked. After the two rounds of evaluation, 294 words/expressions were rated "appropriate" and were analyzed by the review group. This group, after two rounds of evaluation, agreed on 263 words/expressions that were transmitted to the working group who defined them. These definitions were rated by the review group. The first round of evaluation established 195 definitions as being appropriated whereas 68 definitions were amended by the review group. Conclusion: This glossary supports transdisciplinary communication, reduces the extent of variations in practice and optimizes decision-making. International debate on all aspects might be strengthened by an improved understanding of the concept of health pathway.