Increased self-reported pharmacist prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists are positioned to improve access to medications through their ever-expanding role as prescribers, with this role becoming more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Our research aimed to determine the extent of self-reported pharmacist prescribing pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic, to identify barriers and facilitators to pharmacist prescribing, and to explore the relationship between these factors and self-reported prescribing activity. METHODS: A questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDFv2) assessing self-reported prescribing was electronically distributed to all direct patient care pharmacists in NS (N = 1338) in July 2020. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to examine temporal differences in self-reported prescribing activity. TDFv2 responses were descriptively reported as positive (agree/strongly agree), neutral (uncertain), and negative (strongly disagree/disagree) based on the 5-point Likert scale assessing barriers and facilitators to prescribing from March 2020 onward (i.e., 'during' COVID-19). Simple logistic regression was used to measure the relationship between TDFv2 domain responses and self-reported prescribing activity. RESULTS: A total of 190 pharmacists (14.2%) completed the survey. Over 98% of respondents reported prescribing at least once per month in any of the approved prescribing categories, with renewals being the most common activity reported. Since the pandemic, activity in several categories of prescribing significantly increased, including diagnosis supported by protocol (29.0% vs. 58.9%, p < 0.01), minor and common ailments (25.3% vs 34.7%, p = 0.03), preventative medicine (22.1% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.01). Amongst the TDFv2 domains, Beliefs about Consequences domain had the largest influence on prescribing activity (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 1.41-6.97, p < 0.01), with Social Influences (OR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.42-5.70, p < 0.01) being the next most influential. CONCLUSION: Self-reported prescribing by direct patient care community pharmacists in Nova Scotia increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for government-funded services. Key barriers to address, and facilitators to support pharmacist prescribing were identified and can be used to inform future interventions.

Identification of the relationship between barriers and facilitators of pharmacist prescribing and self-reported prescribing activity using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: The scope of pharmacist practice has expanded in many jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia, Canada, to include prescribing of medications. OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between barriers and facilitators to pharmacist prescribing and self-reported prescribing activity using the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 (TDF(v2)). METHODS: The study was a self-administered electronic survey of all registered pharmacists (approximately 1300) in Nova Scotia, Canada. The questionnaire was developed using a consensus process that mapped facilitators and barriers to prescribing with the 14 domains of the TDF(v2). The questionnaire captured information about the type and rate of pharmacists' prescribing activities, pharmacists' perceptions of their prescribing role at the patient, pharmacist, pharmacy organization and health system level, and pharmacist demographics and practice settings. A 5-point Likert scale was used for most TDF(v2) domains. Cronbach's alpha was used to study the internal consistency of responses within each of the TDF(v2) domains and simple logistic regression was used to measure the relationship between TDF(v2) domain responses and self-reported prescribing activity. Open-ended questions were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Eighty-seven pharmacists completed the questionnaire. The majority of respondents were female (70 %), staff pharmacists (52 %) practicing pharmacy for a mean of 18 years. The three domains that respondents most positively associated with prescribing were Knowledge (84 %), Reinforcement (81 %) and Intentions (78 %). The largest effect on prescribing activity was the Skills domain (OR 4.41, 95% CI, 1.34-14.47). CONCLUSIONS: We determined the TDF(v2) domains associated with pharmacist self-reported prescribing behaviours. This understanding can assist the development of policy and program interventions at the pharmacist, pharmacy, and health system levels, to increase the uptake of pharmacist prescribing. Further work is needed to develop and implement interventions based on the domains identified, and to test these in pilot settings and then in large-scale interventions.

Ambulatory Medication Reconciliation in Dialysis Patients: Benefits and Community Practitioners' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory medication reconciliation can reduce the frequency of medication discrepancies and may also reduce adverse drug events. Patients receiving dialysis are at high risk for medication discrepancies because they typically have multiple comorbid conditions, are taking many medications, and are receiving care from many practitioners. Little is known about the potential benefits of ambulatory medication reconciliation for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the number, type, and potential level of harm associated with medication discrepancies identified through ambulatory medication reconciliation and to ascertain the views of community pharmacists and family physicians about this service. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved patients initiating hemodialysis who received ambulatory medication reconciliation in a hospital renal program over the period July 2014 to July 2016. Discrepancies identified on the medication reconciliation forms for study patients were extracted and categorized by discrepancy type and potential level of harm. The level of harm was determined independently by a pharmacist and a nurse practitioner using a defined scoring system. In the event of disagreement, a nephrologist determined the final score. Surveys were sent to 52 community pharmacists and 44 family physicians involved in the care of study patients to collect their opinions and perspectives on ambulatory medication reconciliation. RESULTS: Ambulatory medication reconciliation was conducted 296 times for a total of 147 hemodialysis patients. The mean number of discrepancies identified per patient was 1.31 (standard deviation 2.00). Overall, 30% of these discrepancies were deemed to have the potential to cause moderate to severe patient discomfort or clinical deterioration. Survey results indicated that community practitioners found ambulatory medication reconciliation valuable for providing quality care to dialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided evidence that ambulatory medication reconciliation can increase patient safety and potentially prevent adverse events associated with medication discrepancies.

CONTEXTE: Le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires peut réduire les divergences au chapitre des médicaments et les événements indésirables liés aux médicaments. Les divergences relatives aux médicaments représentent un risque élevé pour les patients dialysés, car ils souffrent normalement de multiples troubles comorbides, ils prennent souvent de nombreux médicaments et ils sont soignés par bon nombre de praticiens. Peu d'information existe sur les possibles avantages du bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires pour ces patients. OBJECTIFS: Déterminer le nombre et la catégorie des divergences concernant les médicaments constatées lors d'un bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires ainsi que la gravité potentielle des préjudices consécutifs. De plus, établir la position des pharmaciens communautaires et des médecins de famille sur cette modalité du bilan comparatif des médicaments. MÉTHODES: La présente étude de cohorte rétrospective a été menée auprès de patients amorçant un traitement par hémodialyse pour qui un bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires a été réalisé dans le cadre d'un programme hospitalier des maladies du rein, entre juillet 2014 et juillet 2016. Les divergences trouvées dans les formulaires de bilan comparatif des médicaments ont été classées par catégorie et selon la gravité potentielle des préjudices. Le niveau du préjudice a été déterminé de manière indépendante par un pharmacien et un membre du personnel infirmier praticien à l'aide d'un système de notation défini. En cas de désaccord, le score final était établi par un néphrologue. Des sondages ont été envoyés à 52 pharmaciens communautaires et à 44 médecins de famille prodiguant des soins aux participants afin qu'ils expriment leurs opinions et leurs points de vue sur le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires. RÉSULTATS: En tout, 296 bilans comparatifs des médicaments en soins ambulatoires ont été effectués auprès de 147 patients hémodialysés. Le nombre moyen de divergences constatées par patient était de 1,31 (écart-type de 2,00). Dans l'ensemble, 30 % de ces divergences ont été considérées comme une source potentielle d'un inconfort allant de modéré à grave ou de dégradation clinique. Selon les résultats du sondage, les praticiens communautaires ont jugé le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires utile à la prestation de soins de qualité aux patients dialysés. CONCLUSIONS: D'après les résultats de l'étude, le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires augmenterait la sécurité des patients et pourrait prévenir les événements indésirables liés aux divergences relatives aux médicaments.