Mapping the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in community pharmacies 2003-2021 using the Theoretical Domains Framework: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is an evidence-based approach to finding effective medication therapies. While community pharmacists are ideally situated to provide PGx testing, the extent of its implementation is limited within community pharmacies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore trends in the international peer-reviewed primary literature on community pharmacists' implementation of PGx and map the main findings on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: A literature search and 2-step screening were conducted per PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, community pharmacy setting, full papers, and empirical research. Data were collated in a data extraction form. The main findings were deductively mapped on the TDF with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 1176 identified documents screened, 39 were included in this scoping review. Four groups of research were identified: pre-implementation surveys (interviews, and focus groups [56%, n = 22]); PGx implementation (single cohort to assess feasibility [38%, n = 15]); PGx implementation (controlled study to assess feasibility [n = 1, 2.5%]); and efficacy of PGx (2.5%, n = 1). Most studies throughout the 4 groups sought pharmacists' perceptions (46%, n = 18) and used the quantitative paradigm (77%, n = 30). TDF mapping documented positive beliefs about the benefits of PGx testing as a part of the pharmacists' role. Barriers to PGx use included pharmacists' awareness of knowledge gaps, low confidence in interpreting and communicating PGx results, concerns about cost, privacy, and integration into pharmacy workflow. CONCLUSION: Research addressing PGx implementation within the community pharmacy evolved from assessing individuals' perceptions of PGx to determining the feasibility of PGx testing in pharmacies and evaluating the impact of PGx testing on patient outcomes in depression. Mapping the main findings on the TDF facilitates the development of multidimensional interventions, potentially targeting patients, pharmacists, and health policy.

Evaluation of Medication Incidents in a Long-term Care Facility Using Electronic Medication Administration Records and Barcode Technology.

Objective To describe the frequency, type, and severity of reported medication incidents that occurred at a long-term care facility (LTCF) despite electronic medication administration record and barcode-assisted medication administration (eMAR-BCMA) use. The study also contains analysis for the contribution of staff workarounds to reported medication administration errors (MAEs) using an established typology for BCMA workarounds, characterize if the eMAR-BCMA technology contributed to MAEs, and explore characteristics influencing incident severity. Design Retrospective incident report review. Setting A 239-bed LTCF in Alberta, Canada, that implemented eMAR-BCMA in 2013. Participants 270 paper-based, medication incident reports submitted voluntarily between June 2015 and October 2017. Interventions None. Results Most of the 264 resident-specific medication incidents occurred during the administration (71.9%, 190/264) or dispensing (28.4%, 75/264) phases, and 2.3% (6/264) resulted in temporary harm. Medication omission (43.7%, 83/190) and incorrect time (22.6%, 43/190) were the most common type of MAE. Workarounds occurred in 41.1% (78/190) of MAEs, most commonly documenting administration before the medication was administered (44.9%, 35/78). Of the non-workaround MAEs, 52.7% (59/112) were notassociated with the eMAR-BCMA technology, while 26.8% (30/112) involved system design shortcomings, most notably lack of a requirement to scan each medication pouch during administration. MAEs involving workarounds were less likely to reach the resident (74.4 vs 88.8%; relative risk = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97). Conclusion Administration and dispensing errors were the most reported medication incidents. eMAR-BCMA workarounds, and design shortcomings were involved in a large proportion of reported MAEs. Attention to optimal eMAR-BCMA use and design are required to facilitate medication safety in LTCFs.

Pharmacists as Personalized Medicine Experts (PRIME): Experiences Implementing Pharmacist-Led Pharmacogenomic Testing in Primary Care Practices.

Research exploring the integration of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing by pharmacists into their primary care practices (including community pharmacies) has focused on the "external" factors that impact practice implementation. In this study, additional "internal" factors, related to the capabilities, opportunities, and motivations of pharmacists that influence their ability to implement PGx testing, were analyzed. Semi-structured interview data from the Pharmacists as Personalized Medicine Experts (PRIME) study, which examined the barriers and facilitators to implementing PGx testing by pharmacists into primary care practice, were analyzed. Through thematic analysis, using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) domains as deductive codes, the authors identified the most relevant TDF domains and applied the behavioural change wheel (BCW) to generate intervention types to aid in the implementation of PGx testing. Pharmacists described how their professional identities, practice environments, self-confidence, and beliefs in the benefits of PGx impacted their ability to provide a PGx-testing service. Potential interventions to improve the implementation of the PGx service included preparing pharmacists for managing an increased patient load, helping pharmacists navigate the software and technology requirements associated with the PGx service, and streamlining workflows and documentation requirements. As interest in the wide-scale implementation of PGx testing through community pharmacies grows, additional strategies need to address the "internal" factors that influence the ability of pharmacists to integrate testing into their practices.

Ensuring quality qualitative research reporting in community pharmacy: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality for a sample of community pharmacy qualitative research articles based on the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines, data interpretation and use of theory. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE to identify qualitative research related to community pharmacy. Data were extracted and evaluated based on the SRQR standards, data interpretation level and use of theory. Adherence to standards was analysed using descriptive statistics. KEY FINDINGS: Eighty-one studies were retrieved through the database search (n = 81). Then, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria after screening abstracts and full texts. Twelve out of 21 SRQR were present in more than 80% of the studies. However, essential standards, such as research approach, reflexivity and trustworthiness techniques, were absent or partially present in 30 (97%) studies, 30 (97%) studies and 21 (68%) studies, respectively. Data interpretation level was descriptive in 27 (87%) studies and interpretive or partially interpretive in 4 (13%) studies. Theory was absent in 19 (60%) and implied, partially integrated or retrospectively applied in 12 (40%) of the studies. CONCLUSION: Trustworthiness and quality of qualitative inferences within community pharmacy research could be enhanced with increasing awareness about reporting; the approach and paradigm, reflexivity, trustworthiness techniques, data interpretation level and theoretical use.

Medication Education Provided to School-Aged Children: A Systematic Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the educational interventions regarding prescription and nonprescription medication use for school-aged children, we systematically reviewed evidence of programs available for this age group. METHODS: Searches in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were conducted. Search terms focused on: population education, school-age children, and medications. Studies were excluded if they were specific to a particular disease state or class of medication, drugs of misuse and illicit drugs. Data extraction included study design, location, educational intervention and duration, research methods, and main findings. RESULTS: We found 14 studies representing 8 separate projects. Six projects were identified in the gray literature. Projects ranged from individual sessions to national programs. Quantitative studies showed improvement in knowledge, medication literacy, and confidence. The adoption of medication education strategies was dependent on the educator's comfort level and beliefs regarding medication safety. CONCLUSIONS: Credible medication education resources are available and have been shown to improve students' knowledge. There remains a need for multifaceted implementation and evaluation strategies. Strategies and resources are available to implement interventions in communities to address medication education in school-age children. Frameworks should be used to facilitate the implementation of effective health promotion strategies around safe-medication use for school-aged children.

Checking Inhaler Technique in the Community Pharmacy: Predictors of Critical Errors.

Inhaled medications are critical in the pharmaceutical management of respiratory conditions, however, the majority of patients demonstrate at least one critical error when using an inhaler. Since community pharmacists can be instrumental in addressing this care gap, we aimed to determine the rate and type of critical inhaler errors in community pharmacy settings, elucidate the factors contributing to inhaler technique errors, and identify instances when community pharmacists check proper inhaler use. Fourth year pharmacy students on community practice placement (n = 53) identified 200 patients where at least one error was observed in 78% of participants when demonstrating inhaler technique. Prevalent errors of the users were associated with metered dose inhaler (MDI) (55.6%), Ellipta® (88.3%), and Discus® (86.7%) devices. Overall, the mean number of errors was 1.09. Possession of more than one inhaler, use of rescue inhaler, and poor control of asthma were found to be significant predictors of having at least one critical error. In all participating pharmacies, inhaler technique is mainly checked on patient request (93.0%) and for all new inhalers (79.0%).

Family physicians' perceptions of pharmacists prescribing in Alberta.

Canadian pharmacists now have prescribing authority and little is documented about the physicians' perception, experience and relational dynamics evolving around the pharmacists' prescribing practice. The objective of this study was to explore Albertan family physicians' perceptions and experiences of pharmacists' prescribing practice. We used purposeful and maximum variation sampling method and semi-structured face to face or telephone interviews to collect data. From October 2014 to February 2016, we interviewed 12 family physicians in Alberta, having experience with pharmacist prescribing. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis using an interpretive description method, guided by "Relational Coordination" theory. NVivo software was used to manage the data. Three key beliefs (i.e., renewal versus initiate new prescription, community versus team pharmacists, and "I am responsible") about pharmacist prescribing were identified. Trust and communication were prominent themes which shaped participants' collaboration with pharmacist prescribers. Participants were classified as either "collaborative" or "consultative". Participants had greater collaboration with the team pharmacist prescribers compared to community pharmacists due to a higher level of trust and ease of communication. Renewal prescribing by any pharmacist was well accepted but participants showed hesitancy in accepting pharmacist-initiated prescriptions. Our findings provide insight into interprofessional collaboration and communication between physician and pharmacist prescribers.

Community pharmacists' clinical reasoning: a protocol analysis.

Background There are two fundamental approaches to clinical reasoning, intuitive and analytical. These approaches have yet to be well explored to describe how pharmacists make decisions to determine medication appropriateness. Objective (1) to identify the cognitive actions (i.e., operators) that pharmacists employ when they move from one cue (i.e., concept) to another, and (2) to describe the overall clinical reasoning approach taken by pharmacists when checking for medication appropriateness. Setting Pharmacists from a chain pharmacy in Canada were invited to participate in this study. Method Data was collected in private rooms using video recordings to capture simulated patient-pharmacist interactions of a new prescription medication. A simulated case scenario was used to gather two types of verbal reports, concurrent think-aloud and structured retrospective think-aloud from pharmacists. All verbal reports were video-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using protocol analysis. Main outcome measure Pharmacists' reasoning approaches when making medication appropriateness decisions. Results A total of 17 pharmacists participated. Pharmacists were most likely to use analytical clinical reasoning approaches when checking prescriptions and three used no clinical reasoning. When the pharmacists were asked specific questions regarding the decision-making model for pharmacy (i.e., check for indication, efficacy, safety, and adherence), 50% reported using analytical decision-making approaches, with a third of the decisions being made in hindsight. Conclusion The majority of the pharmacists followed an analytical decision-making approach to clinical reasoning. When the pharmacists were asked prompting questions about their medication-related decisions, they employed a combination of intuitive and analytical approaches. The pharmacists had the competency to check for medication appropriateness; though this knowledge was mostly restructured during the process of hindsight reasoning.

"Being in Control of My Asthma Myself" Patient Experience of Asthma Management: A Qualitative Interpretive Description.

Asthma control can be achieved with effective and safe medication use; however, many patients are not controlled. Patients' perceptions of asthma, asthma treatment, and pharmacist roles can impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences and patient⁻pharmacist relationships in asthma care. Qualitative Interpretive Description method guided the study. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 11 patients recruited from personal contacts, pharmacies, and asthma clinics. Categories and themes were identified using inductive constant comparison. Themes indicated patients had a personalized common sense approach to asthma management, "go-to" health care provider, and prioritized patient⁻pharmacist relationships. Patients described their illness experiences and asthma control based on personal markers similar to the common sense model of self-regulation. Patients chose a family physician, asthma specialist, respiratory therapist, or pharmacist as an expert resource for asthma management. Patient perceived pharmacists' roles as information provider, adviser, or care provider. Pharmacists who develop a collaborative relationship with their asthma patients are better positioned to provide tailored education and self-management support. Inviting patients to share their perspective could increase patient engagement and uptake of personalised asthma action plans to achieve asthma control.

Electronic Medication Administration Records in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: To map the extent, range, and nature of research on the effectiveness, level of use, and perceptions about electronic medication administration records (eMARs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and identify gaps in current knowledge and priority areas for future research. DESIGN: Scoping review of quantitative and qualitative literature. SETTING: Literature review. PARTICIPANTS: Original research relating to eMAR in LTCF was eligible for inclusion. MEASUREMENTS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Library and performed general and advanced searches of Google to identify grey literature. Two authors independently screened for eligibility of studies. Independent reviewers extracted data regarding country of origin, design, study methods, outcomes studied, and main results in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 694 articles, of which 34 met inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 2006 and 2016 and were mostly from the United States (n=25). Twenty studies (59%) used quantitative methods, including surveys and analysis of eMAR data; 7 (21%) used qualitative methods, including interviews, focus groups, document review, and observation; and 7 (21%) used mixed methods. Three major research areas were explored: medication and medication administration error rates (n=11), eMAR benefits and challenges (n=19), and eMAR prevalence and uptake (n=15). Evidence linking eMAR use and reductions in medication errors is weak because of suboptimal study design and reporting. The majority of studies were descriptive and documented inconsistent benefits and challenges and low levels of eMAR implementation. CONCLUSION: Further investigation is required to rigorously evaluate the effect of standalone eMAR systems on medication administration errors and patient safety, the extent of eMAR implementation, pharmacists' perceptions, and cost effectiveness of eMAR systems in LTCF.

Development and validation of a survey instrument to measure factors that influence pharmacist adoption of prescribing in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Study objectives were to develop a questionnaire to assess factors influencing pharmacists' adoption of prescribing (i.e., continuing, adapting or initiating therapy), describe use of pre-incentive and mixed mode survey, and establish survey psychometric properties. METHODS: Questions were developed based on prior qualitative research and Diffusion of Innovation theory. Expert review, cognitive testing, survey pilot, and main survey were used to test the questionnaire. Six content experts reviewed the questionnaire to establish face and content validity. Ten pharmacists from diverse practice settings were purposefully recruited for a cognitive interview to verify question readability. Content analysis was used to analyze the results. A pre-survey introduction letter with a monetary incentive was mailed via post to 100 (i.e. pilot) and 700 (i.e., main survey) randomly selected pharmacists. This was followed by an e-mail with a personalized link to the online questionnaire, e-mail reminders, and a telephone reminder if required. The psychometric properties of scales were evaluated with an exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. Scale responses were described. RESULTS: Engagement of six experts and ten pharmacists clarified definitions (e.g., prescribing), terminology, recall periods, and response options for the 34-item response scale. Fifty-six pharmacists completed the online pilot survey. Based on this data, ambiguous questions and routing issues were addressed. Three hundred and seventy-eight pharmacists completed the online main survey for a response rate of 54.6%. The factors analysis resulted in 27 questions in eight scales: (1) self-efficacy, (2) support from practice environment, (3) support from interprofessional relationship, (4) impact on professionalism, (5) impact on patient care), (6) prescribing beliefs, (7) technical use of electronic health record (EHR) and (8) patient care use of the EHR. Prescribing beliefs and technical use of the EHR scales had low reliability while the remaining six scales had strong evidence for reliability and validity. CONCLUSION: Through a multi-stage process, a survey instrument was developed to capture pharmacists' perceptions of prescribing influences. This questionnaire may support future research to develop interventions to enhance adoption of prescribing and enhance direct patient care by pharmacists.

Development and validation of a survey instrument to measure factors that influence pharmacist adoption of prescribing in Alberta, Canada

Objective: Study objectives were to develop a questionnaire to assess factors influencing pharmacists’ adoption of prescribing (i.e., continuing, adapting or initiating therapy), describe use of pre-incentive and mixed mode survey, and establish survey psychometric properties. Methods: Questions were developed based on prior qualitative research and Diffusion of Innovation theory. Expert review, cognitive testing, survey pilot, and main survey were used to test the questionnaire. Six content experts reviewed the questionnaire to establish face and content validity. Ten pharmacists from diverse practice settings were purposefully recruited for a cognitive interview to verify question readability. Content analysis was used to analyze the results. A pre-survey introduction letter with a monetary incentive was mailed via post to 100 (i.e. pilot) and 700 (i.e., main survey) randomly selected pharmacists. This was followed by an e-mail with a personalized link to the online questionnaire, e-mail reminders, and a telephone reminder if required. The psychometric properties of scales were evaluated with an exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Scale responses were described. Results: Engagement of six experts and ten pharmacists clarified definitions (e.g., prescribing), terminology, recall periods, and response options for the 34-item response scale. Fifty-six pharmacists completed the online pilot survey. Based on this data, ambiguous questions and routing issues were addressed. Three hundred and seventy-eight pharmacists completed the online main survey for a response rate of 54.6%. The factors analysis resulted in 27 questions in eight scales: (1) self-efficacy, (2) support from practice environment, (3) support fro interprofessional relationship, (4) impact on professionalism, (5) impact on patient care), (6) prescribing beliefs, (7) technical use of electronic health record (EHR) and (8) patient care use of the EHR. Prescribing beliefs and technical use of the EHR scales had low reliabilit while the remaining six scales had strong evidence for reliability and validity. Conclusion: Through a multistage process, a survey instrument was developed to capture pharmacists’ perceptions of prescribing influences. This questionnaire may support future research to develop interventions to enhance adoption of prescribing and enhance direct patient care by pharmacists (AU)

No disponible

Evaluating the potential for pharmacists to prescribe oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF)-related strokes remains poorly used. Alternate strategies, such as community pharmacist prescribing of OAC, should be explored. METHODS: Approximately 400 pharmacists, half with additional prescribing authority (APA), randomly selected from the Alberta College of Pharmacists, were invited to participate in an online survey over a 6-week period. The survey consisted of demographics, case scenarios assessing appropriateness of OAC (based on the 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines) and perceived barriers to prescribing. Regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 35% (139/397) of pharmacists responded to the survey, and 57% of these had APA. Depending on the case scenario, 55% to 92% of pharmacists correctly identified patients eligible for stroke prevention therapy, but only about a half selected the appropriate antithrombotic agent; there was no difference in the knowledge according to APA status. In multivariable analysis, predictors significantly associated with guideline-concordant prescribing were having the pharmacist interact as part of an interprofessional team (p = 0.04) and direct OAC (DOAC) self-efficacy (confidence in ability to extend, adapt, initiate or alter prescriptions; p = 0.02). Barriers to prescribing OAC for APA pharmacists included a lack of AF and DOAC knowledge and preference for consulting the physician first, but these same pharmacists also identified difficulty in contacting the physician as a major barrier. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists can identify patients who would benefit from stroke prevention therapy in AF. However, physician collaboration and further training on AF and guidelines for prescribing OAC are needed.

Assessing the knowledge to practice gap: The asthma practices of community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are well positioned to identify patients with poorly controlled asthma and trained to optimize asthma therapy. Yet, over 90% of patients with asthma live with uncontrolled disease. We sought to understand the current state of asthma management in practice in Alberta and explore the potential use of the Chat, Check and Chart (CCC) model to enhance pharmacists' care for patients with asthma. METHODS: An 18-question survey was used to examine pharmacists' monitoring of asthma control and prior use of the CCC tools. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the response rate, sample demographics, asthma management and CCC use. Survey validity and reliability were established. RESULTS: One hundred randomly selected pharmacists completed the online survey with a 40% (100/250) response rate. A third of responding pharmacists reported talking to most patients about asthma symptoms and medication, with a greater focus on talking with patients on new prescriptions over those with ongoing therapies. Fewer than 1 in 10 pharmacists routinely talked to most patients about asthma action plans (AAPs). The majority of pharmacists (76%) were familiar with the CCC model, and 83% of those reported that the CCC model influenced their practice anywhere from somewhat (45%) to a great deal (38%). Both scales had good reliability, and factor analysis provided support for scale validity. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in pharmacists' activities in monitoring asthma. Pharmacists rarely used AAPs. The CCC model had a high level of self-reported familiarity, use and influence among pharmacists.

Thoroughness of community pharmacists' assessment and communication using the patient care process.

BACKGROUND: The patient care process (PCP) was adopted to move community pharmacy practice from the traditional dispensing role to a more professional level of patient care. However, research has not yet empirically characterized how pharmacists conduct the PCP in community pharmacies. OBJECTIVES: This study characterizes how pharmacists employ the PCP when evaluating medication appropriateness in a simulated community pharmacy setting. METHODS: A mixed methods analysis was employed to analyze simulated patient-pharmacist interactions (i.e., consultations), and concurrent think-aloud (checking sessions). Transcripts were quantitatively coded for elements of the PCP. A generic qualitative approach was used to explore how pharmacists provided care. RESULTS: Almost all pharmacists checked for medication indication, safety, and manageability at the end of the process when releasing the medication to the patient. Still, most pharmacists gathered insufficient information to fully evaluate medication appropriateness. Six overarching themes described consultations and checking sessions: missed opportunities, the absence of personalized assessments, reliance on routines, nonspecific questions, communication style, and response to patient cues. The quantitative and qualitative findings together created a picture of incomplete assessments which were driven by technical routines and medication-focused communication. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of pharmacists completed most of the patient-care process. Even so, pharmacists did not complete a full assessment of medication appropriateness. Patient care tasks were driven by routines and occurred at the end of the process, whereas the initial patient assessment and prescription check were mainly devoted to technical activities. Pharmacists had opportunities to enhance patient-centered communication by engaging patients in dialogue and recognizing patient emotional cue.

Any questions? Yes, do pharmacists monitor medications at refill?

OBJECTIVES: To describe pharmacists' self-reported refill monitoring activities and test for demographic and work setting differences that contribute to variation. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional survey design. A 4-contact survey was mailed to 599 community pharmacists randomly selected from a list provided by the state board of pharmacy. Surveys were mailed in June and July 2013. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to characterize these data. RESULTS: Of the 599 surveys mailed, 269 complete responses were received for a 44.9% response rate. Pharmacists reported reviewing the patient's medication profile for 40% of refills. Of the 29% of refills handed off, pharmacists asked 70% of patients if they had any questions and 23% a specific question about drug therapy. Pharmacists at mass merchandisers and those in smaller towns were least likely to examine the profile, whereas pharmacists working at independent stores, owners, and pharmacists with a BS Pharm degree were most likely to hand off refills to patients. Demographic and work-setting characteristics factors were not associated with the rate of asking specific questions about the patient's drug therapy, although pharmacists with a BS Pharm, at an independent store, or working in the smallest towns were least likely to ask "Any questions?" when handing off the prescription. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists reported reviewing patient profiles, handing off prescriptions, and asking medication-specific questions to fewer than one-half of patients picking up refills. Pharmacists were more likely to inquire if patients had any questions than to ask specific questions, and other researchers have reported that the former phrasing may inadvertently serve to reduce patient engagement.