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.

Improving access to general practice for and with people with severe and multiple disadvantage: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) who experience combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, violence, abuse, and poor mental health have high health needs and poor access to primary care. AIM: To improve access to general practice for people with SMD by facilitating collaborative service improvement meetings between healthcare staff, people with lived experience of SMD, and those who support them; participants were then interviewed about this work. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Bridging Gaps group is a collaboration between healthcare staff, researchers, women with lived experience of SMD, and a charity that supports them in a UK city. A project was co-produced by the Bridging Gaps group to improve access to general practice for people with SMD, which was further developed with three inner-city general practices. METHOD: Nine service improvement meetings were facilitated at three general practices, and six of these were formally observed. Nine practice staff and four women with lived experience of SMD were interviewed. Three women with lived experience of SMD and one staff member who supports them participated in a focus group. Data were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: By providing time and funding opportunities to motivated general practice staff and involving participants with lived experience of SMD, service changes were made in an effort to improve access for people with SMD. These included prioritising patients on an inclusion patient list with more flexible access, providing continuity for patients via a care coordinator and micro-team of clinicians, and developing an information-sharing document. The process and outcomes improved connections within and between general practices, support organisations, and people with SMD. CONCLUSION: The co-designed strategies described in this study could be adapted locally and evaluated in other areas. Investing in this focused way of working may improve accessibility to health care, health equity, and staff wellbeing.

Exploring whether primary care networks can contribute to the national goal of reducing health inequalities: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Significant health inequalities exist in England. Primary care networks (PCNs), comprised of GP practices, were introduced in England in 2019 with funding linked to membership. PCNs have been tasked with tackling health inequalities. AIM: To consider how the design and introduction of PCNs might influence their ability to tackle health inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential mixed-methods study of PCNs in England. METHOD: Linear regression of annual PCN-allocated funding per workload-weighted patient on income deprivation score from 2019-2023 was used. Qualitative interviews and observations of PCNs and PCN staff were undertaken across seven PCN sites in England (July 2020-March 2022). RESULTS: Across 1243 networks in 2019-2020, a 10% higher level of income deprivation resulted in £0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] = £0.25 to £0.37), 4.50%, less funding per weighted patient. In 2022-2023, the same difference in deprivation resulted in £0.16 (95% CI = £0.11 to £0.21), 0.60%, more funding. Qualitative interviews highlighted that, although there were requirements for PCNs to tackle health inequalities, the policy design, and PCN internal relationships and maturity, shaped and sometimes restricted how PCNs approached this task locally. CONCLUSION: Allocated PCN funding has become more pro-poor over time, suggesting that the need to account for deprivation within funding models is understood by policymakers. The following additional approaches have been highlighted that could support PCNs to tackle inequalities: better management support; encouragement and support to redistribute funding internally to support practices serving more deprived populations; and greater specificity in service requirements.

Implementing the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in seven English Primary Care Networks: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) provides funding to Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in England to recruit additional staff into specified roles. The intention was to support general practice by recruiting an extra 26 000 staff by 2024, increasing access and easing workload pressures. AIM: To explore the establishment of the ARRS as part of PCNs' development to understand their role in supporting general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A longitudinal, qualitative case study involving seven geographically dispersed PCNs across England. METHOD: Data were collected from July 2020 to March 2022, including 91 semi-structured interviews and 87 h of meeting observations. Transcripts were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Implementation of the ARRS was variable across the study sites, but most shared similar experiences and concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the introduction of the new roles, and significant variability was found in modes of employment. Cross-cutting issues included: the need for additional space to accommodate new staff; the inflexibility of aspects of the scheme, including reinvestment of unspent funds; and the need for support and oversight of employed staff. Perceived benefits of the ARRS include improved patient care and the potential to save GP time. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest the ARRS has potential to fulfil its objective of supporting and improving access to general practice. However, attention to operational requirements including appropriate funding, estates, and management of staff is important if this is to be realised, as is clarity for the scheme post-contract end in 2024.

Managing patient complaints to improve your practice.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patient complaints to regulators suggest practices need effective systems to manage and address patient concerns. Many patient complaints can often be dealt with at a practice level, but patients can have difficulty reporting negative experiences directly. OBJECTIVE: This article explores the benefits of having a system to accept and deal with patient feedback within a practice and identifies barriers preventing patients from raising their concerns directly. DISCUSSION: Managing patient complaints well at a practice level can prevent them escalating, as well as offering insights to reduce risk and improve patient care. Understanding factors that inhibit patients from raising concerns, or prevent staff from being able to accept and deal with complaints, allows an opportunity for practices to implement strategies to address these barriers and support patients and staff. Effective strategies include process improvements, as well as cultural changes and support for those managing a complaint process.

How do multi-morbidity and polypharmacy affect general practice attendance and referral rates? A retrospective analysis of consultations.

BACKGROUND: As prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy rise, health care systems must respond to these challenges. Data is needed from general practice regarding the impact of age, number of chronic illnesses and medications on specific metrics of healthcare utilisation. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of general practices in a university-affiliated education and research network, consisting of 72 practices. Records from a random sample of 100 patients aged 50 years and over who attended each participating practice in the previous two years were analysed. Through manual record searching, data were collected on patient demographics, number of chronic illnesses and medications, numbers of attendances to the general practitioner (GP), practice nurse, home visits and referrals to a hospital doctor. Attendance and referral rates were expressed per person-years for each demographic variable and the ratio of attendance to referral rate was also calculated. RESULTS: Of the 72 practices invited to participate, 68 (94%) accepted, providing complete data on a total of 6603 patients' records and 89,667 consultations with the GP or practice nurse; 50.1% of patients had been referred to hospital in the previous two years. The attendance rate to general practice was 4.94 per person per year and the referral rate to the hospital was 0.6 per person per year, giving a ratio of over eight attendances for every referral. Increasing age, number of chronic illnesses and number of medications were associated with increased attendance rates to the GP and practice nurse and home visits but did not significantly increase the ratio of attendance to referral rate. DISCUSSION: As age, morbidity and number of medications rise, so too do all types of consultations in general practice. However, the rate of referral remains relatively stable. General practice must be supported to provide person centred care to an ageing population with rising rates of multi-morbidity and polypharmacy.

'Here to stay': changes to prescribing medication in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION The delivery of health care by primary care general practices rapidly changed in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020. AIM This study explores the experience of a large group of New Zealand general practice health-care professionals with changes to prescribing medication during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS We qualitatively analysed a subtheme on prescribing medication from the General Practice Pandemic Experience New Zealand (GPPENZ) study, where general practice team members nationwide were invited to participate in five surveys over 16 weeks from 8 May 2020. RESULTS Overall, 78 (48%) of 164 participants enrolled in the study completed all surveys. Five themes were identified: changes to prescribing medicines; benefits of electronic prescription; technical challenges; clinical and medication supply challenges; and opportunities for the future. There was a rapid adoption of electronic prescribing as an adjunct to use of telehealth, minimising in-person consultations and paper prescription handling. Many found electronic prescribing an efficient and streamlined processes, whereas others had technical barriers and transmission to pharmacies was unreliable with sometimes incompatible systems. There was initially increased demand for repeat medications, and at the same time, concern that vulnerable patients did not have usual access to medication. The benefits of innovation at a time of crisis were recognised and respondents were optimistic that e-prescribing technical challenges could be resolved. DISCUSSION Improving e-prescribing technology between prescribers and dispensers, initiatives to maintain access to medication, particularly for vulnerable populations, and permanent regulatory changes will help patients continue to access their medications through future pandemic disruption.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

Use of alternative consultation forms in Danish general practice in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Attempts to manage the COVID-19 pandemic have led to radical reorganisations of health care systems worldwide. General practitioners (GPs) provide the vast majority of patient care, and knowledge of their experiences with providing care for regular health issues during a pandemic is scarce. Hence, in a Danish context we explored how GPs experienced reorganising their work in an attempt to uphold sufficient patient care while contributing to minimizing the spread of COVID-19. Further, in relation to this, we examined what guided GPs' choices between telephone, video and face-to-face consultations. METHODS: This study consisted of qualitative interviews with 13 GPs. They were interviewed twice, approximately three months apart in the initial phase of the pandemic, and they took daily notes for 20 days. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and inductively analysed. RESULTS: The GPs re-organised their clinical work profoundly. Most consultations were converted to video or telephone, postponed or cancelled. The use of video first rose, but soon declined, once again replaced by an increased use of face-to-face consultations. When choosing between consultation forms, the GPs took into account the need to minimise the risk of COVID-19, the central guidelines, and their own preference for face-to-face consultations. There were variations over time and between the GPs regarding which health issues were dealt with by using video and/or the telephone. For some health issues, the GPs generally deemed it acceptable to use video or telephone, postpone or cancel appointments for a short term, and in a crisis situation. They experienced relational and technical limitations with video consultation, while diagnostic uncertainty was not regarded as a prominent issue CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how the GPs experienced telephone and video consultations as being useful in a pandemic situation when face-to-face consultations had to be severely restricted. The GPs did, however, identify several limitations similar to those known in non-pandemic times. The weighing of pros and cons and their willingness to use these alternatives shifted and generally diminished when face-to-face consultations were once again deemed viable. In case of future pandemics, such alternatives seem valuable, at least for a short term.

Reorganisation of GP surgeries during the COVID-19 outbreak: analysis of guidelines from 15 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in managing the COVID-19 outbreak. However, they may encounter difficulties adapting their practices to the pandemic. We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the pandemic from 15 countries. METHODS: A network of GPs collaborated together in a three-step process: (i) identification of key recommendations of GP surgery reorganisation, according to WHO, CDC and health professional resources from health care facilities; (ii) collection of key recommendations included in the guidelines published in 15 countries; (iii) analysis, comparison and synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Recommendations for the reorganisation of GP surgeries of four types were identified: (i) reorganisation of GP consultations (cancelation of non-urgent consultations, follow-up via e-consultations), (ii) reorganisation of GP surgeries (area partitioning, visual alerts and signs, strict hygiene measures), (iii) reorganisation of medical examinations by GPs (equipment, hygiene, partial clinical examinations, patient education), (iv) reorganisation of GP staff (equipment, management, meetings, collaboration with the local community). CONCLUSIONS: We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak from 15 countries. These guidelines focus principally on clinical care, with less attention paid to staff management, and the area of epidemiological surveillance and research is largely neglected. The differences of guidelines between countries and the difficulty to apply them in routine care, highlight the need of advanced research in primary care. Thereby, primary care would be able to provide recommendations adapted to the real-world settings and with stronger evidence, which is especially necessary during pandemics.