Non-dispensing pharmacists integrated into general practices as a new interprofessional model: a qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' experiences and views.

BACKGROUND: A new interprofessional model incorporating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice teams can improve the quality of pharmaceutical care. However, results of the model are dependent on the context. Understanding when, why and how the model works may increase chances of successful broader implementation in other general practices. Earlier theories suggested that the results of the model are achieved by bringing pharmacotherapeutic knowledge into general practices. This mechanism may not be enough for successful implementation of the model. We wanted to understand better how establishing new interprofessional models in existing healthcare organisations takes place. METHODS: An interview study, with a realist informed evaluation was conducted. This qualitative study was part of the Pharmacotherapy Optimisation through Integration of a Non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care Teams (POINT) project. We invited the general practitioners of the 9 general practices who (had) worked closely with a non-dispensing pharmacist for an interview. Interview data were analysed through discussions about the coding with the research team where themes were developed over time. RESULTS: We interviewed 2 general practitioners in each general practice (18 interviews in total). In a context where general practitioners acknowledge the need for improvement and are willing to work with a non-dispensing pharmacist as a new team member, the following mechanisms are triggered. Non-dispensing pharmacists add new knowledge to current general practice. Through everyday talk (discursive actions) both general practitioners and non-dispensing pharmacists evolve in what they consider appropriate, legitimate and imaginable in their work situations. They align their professional identities. CONCLUSIONS: Not only the addition of new knowledge of non-dispensing pharmacist to the general practice team is crucial for the success of this interprofessional healthcare model, but also alignment of the general practitioners' and non-dispensing pharmacists' professional identities. This is essentially different from traditional pharmaceutical care models, in which pharmacists and GPs work in separate organisations. To induce the process of identity alignment, general practitioners need to acknowledge the need to improve the quality of pharmaceutical care interprofessionally. By acknowledging the aspect of interprofessionality, both general practitioners and non-dispensing pharmacists will explore and reflect on what they consider appropriate, legitimate and imaginable in carrying out their professional roles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The POINT project was pre-registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register, with Trial registration number NTR-4389.

Neutrophil and Eosinophil Responses Remain Abnormal for Several Months in Primary Care Patients With COVID-19 Disease.

Introduction: Neutrophil and eosinophil activation and its relation to disease severity has been understudied in primary care patients with COVID-19. In this study, we investigated whether the neutrophil and eosinophil compartment were affected in primary care patients with COVID-19. Methods: COVID-19 patients, aged ≥ 40 years with cardiovascular comorbidity presenting to the general practitioner with substantial symptoms, partaking in the COVIDSat@Home study between January and April 2021, were included. Blood was drawn during and 3 to 6 months after active COVID-19 disease and analyzed by automated flow cytometry, before and after stimulation with a formyl-peptide (fNLF). Mature neutrophil and eosinophil markers at both time points were compared to healthy controls. A questionnaire was conducted on disease symptoms during and 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 disease. Results: The blood of 18 COVID-19 patients and 34 healthy controls was analyzed. During active COVID-19 disease, neutrophils showed reduced CD10 (p = 0.0360), increased CD11b (p = 0.0002) and decreased CD62L expression (p < 0.0001) compared to healthy controls. During active COVID-19 disease, fNLF stimulated neutrophils showed decreased CD10 levels (p < 0.0001). Three to six months after COVID-19 disease, unstimulated neutrophils showed lowered CD62L expression (p = 0.0003) and stimulated neutrophils had decreased CD10 expression (p = 0.0483) compared to healthy controls. Both (un)stimulated CD10 levels increased 3 to 6 months after active disease (p = 0.0120 and p < 0.0001, respectively) compared to during active disease. Eosinophil blood counts were reduced during active COVID-19 disease and increased 3 to 6 months after infection (p < 0.0001). During active COVID-19, eosinophils showed increased unstimulated CD11b (p = 0.0139) and decreased (un)stimulated CD62L expression (p = 0.0036 and p = 0.0156, respectively) compared to healthy controls. Three to six months after COVID-19 disease, (un)stimulated eosinophil CD62L expression was decreased (p = 0.0148 and p = 0.0063, respectively) and the percentage of CD11bbright cells was increased (p = 0.0083 and p = 0.0307, respectively) compared to healthy controls. Conclusion: Automated flow cytometry analysis reveals specific mature neutrophil and eosinophil activation patterns in primary care patients with COVID-19 disease, during and 3 to 6 months after active disease. This suggests that the neutrophil and eosinophil compartment are long-term affected by COVID-19 in primary care patients. This indicates that these compartments may be involved in the pathogenesis of long COVID.

Effects of non-dispensing pharmacists integrated in general practice on medication-related hospitalisations.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of non-dispensing pharmacists (NDPs) integrated in general practice on medication-related hospitalisations, drug burden index and costs in patients at high risk of medication problems (being 65 years or older and using 5 or more chronic medications). METHODS: This was a multicentre, nonrandomised, controlled intervention study with pre-post comparison (2013 vs June 2014 to May 2015) in 25 general practices in the Netherlands, comparing NDP-led care (intervention) with 2 current pharmaceutical care models (usual care and usual care plus). In the intervention group, 10 specially trained NDPs were employed in general practices to take integral responsibility for the pharmaceutical care. They provided a broad range of medication therapy management services both on patient level (e.g. clinical medication review) and practice level (e.g. quality improvement projects). In the control groups, pharmaceutical care was provided as usual by general practitioners and community pharmacists, or as usual plus, when pharmacists were additionally trained in performing medication reviews. RESULTS: Overall, 822 medication-related hospitalisations were identified among 11 281 high-risk patients during the intervention period. After adjustment for clustering and potential confounders, the rate ratio of medication-related hospitalisations in the intervention group compared to usual care was 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.82) and 1.05 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.52) compared to usual care plus. No differences in drug burden index or costs were found. CONCLUSIONS: In general practices with an integrated NDP, the rate of medication-related hospitalisations is lower compared to usual care. No differences with usual care plus were found.