Management of hypertension in an Australian community pharmacy setting - patients' beliefs and perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' perspectives and experiences following a trial of a pharmacist-led service in hypertension management. METHODS: A qualitative study comprising individual interviews was conducted. Patients of a community pharmacy, where a pharmacist-led hypertension management service had been trialled in selected metropolitan regions in Sydney (Australia), were recruited to the study. Emergent themes describing patients' experiences and perspectives on the service were elicited via thematic analysis (using manual inductive coding). KEY FINDINGS: Patients' (N = 18) experiences of the service were extremely positive, especially around pharmacists' monitoring of blood pressure and provision of advice about medication adherence. Patients' participation in the service was based on their trust in, and relationship with, their pharmacist. The perception of working in a 'team' was conveyed through the pharmacist's caring style of communication and the relaxed atmosphere of the community pharmacy. Patients felt that the community pharmacy was an obvious place for such a service because of their regular contact with the pharmacist, but was limited because the pharmacists were not able to prescribe medication. CONCLUSION: Patients were extremely positive about the role of, and their experience of, the pharmacy-based hypertension management service. Factors contributing to the patients' positive experiences provide important insights for community pharmacy practice. Good rapport with the pharmacist and a long-term relationship underpin patient engagement in such services. Restrictions on the pharmacists' scope of practice prevent their expertise, and the benefits of their accessibility as a primary point of contact, from being fully realised.

Best practice data life cycle approaches for the life sciences.

Throughout history, the life sciences have been revolutionised by technological advances; in our era this is manifested by advances in instrumentation for data generation, and consequently researchers now routinely handle large amounts of heterogeneous data in digital formats. The simultaneous transitions towards biology as a data science and towards a 'life cycle' view of research data pose new challenges. Researchers face a bewildering landscape of data management requirements, recommendations and regulations, without necessarily being able to access data management training or possessing a clear understanding of practical approaches that can assist in data management in their particular research domain. Here we provide an overview of best practice data life cycle approaches for researchers in the life sciences/bioinformatics space with a particular focus on 'omics' datasets and computer-based data processing and analysis. We discuss the different stages of the data life cycle and provide practical suggestions for useful tools and resources to improve data management practices.

Implementation and evaluation of a pharmacist-led hypertension management service in primary care: outcomes and methodological challenges.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal utilisation of pharmacotherapy, non-adherence to prescribed treatment, and a lack of monitoring all contribute to poor blood (BP) pressure control in patients with hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a pharmacist-led hypertension management service in terms of processes, outcomes, and methodological challenges. METHOD: A prospective, controlled study was undertaken within the Australian primary care setting. Community pharmacists were recruited to one of three study groups: Group A (Control - usual care), Group B (Intervention), or Group C (Short Intervention). Pharmacists in Groups B and C delivered a service comprising screening and monitoring of BP, as well as addressing poor BP control through therapeutic adjustment and adherence strategies. Pharmacists in Group C delivered the shortened version of the service. RESULTS: Significant changes to key outcome measures were observed in Group C: reduction in systolic and diastolic BPs at the 3-month visit (P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively), improvement in medication adherence scores (P=0.01), and a slight improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-3L Index) scores (P=0.91). There were no significant changes in Group B (the full intervention), and no differences in comparison to Group A (usual care). Pharmacists fed-back that patient recruitment was a key barrier to service implementation, highlighting the methodological implications of screening. CONCLUSION: A collaborative, pharmacist-led hypertension management service can help monitor BP, improve medication adherence, and optimise therapy in a step-wise approach. However, blood pressure screening can effect behaviour change in patients, presenting methodological challenges in the evaluation of services in this context.

Implementation and evaluation of a pharmacist-led hypertension management service in primary care: outcomes and methodological challenges

Background: Suboptimal utilisation of pharmacotherapy, non-adherence to prescribed treatment, and a lack of monitoring all contribute to poor blood (BP) pressure control in patients with hypertension. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a pharmacist-led hypertension management service in terms of processes, outcomes, and methodological challenges. Method: A prospective, controlled study was undertaken within the Australian primary care setting. Community pharmacists were recruited to one of three study groups: Group A (Control - usual care), Group B (Intervention), or Group C (Short Intervention). Pharmacists in Groups B and C delivered a service comprising screening and monitoring of BP, as well as addressing poor BP control through therapeutic adjustment and adherence strategies. Pharmacists in Group C delivered the shortened version of the service. Results: Significant changes to key outcome measures were observed in Group C: reduction in systolic and diastolic BPs at the 3-month visit (P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively), improvement in medication adherence scores (P=0.01), and a slight improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-3L Index) scores (P=0.91). There were no significant changes in Group B (the full intervention), and no differences in comparison to Group A (usual care). Pharmacists fed-back that patient recruitment was a key barrier to service implementation, highlighting the methodological implications of screening. Conclusion: A collaborative, pharmacist-led hypertension management service can help monitor BP, improve medication adherence, and optimise therapy in a step-wise approach. However, blood pressure screening can effect behaviour change in patients, presenting methodological challenges in the evaluation of services in this context (AU)

No disponible

Preparing pharmacists to deliver a targeted service in hypertension management: evaluation of an interprofessional training program.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to medicines by patients and suboptimal prescribing by clinicians underpin poor blood pressure (BP) control in hypertension. In this study, a training program was designed to enable community pharmacists to deliver a service in hypertension management targeting therapeutic adjustments and medication adherence. A comprehensive evaluation of the training program was undertaken. METHODS: Tailored training comprising a self-directed pre-work manual, practical workshop (using real patients), and practice scenarios, was developed and delivered by an inter-professional team (pharmacists, GPs). Supported by practical and written assessment, the training focused on the principles of BP management, BP measurement skills, and adherence strategies. Pharmacists' experience of the training (expectations, content, format, relevance) was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. Immediate feedback was obtained via a questionnaire comprising Likert scales (1 = "very well" to 7 = "poor") and open-ended questions. Further in-depth qualitative evaluation was undertaken via semi-structured interviews several months post-training (and post service implementation). RESULTS: Seventeen pharmacists were recruited, trained and assessed as competent. All were highly satisfied with the training; other than the 'amount of information provided' (median score = 5, "just right"), all aspects of training attained the most positive score of '1'. Pharmacists most valued the integrated team-based approach, GP involvement, and inclusion of real patients, as well as the pre-reading manual, BP measurement workshop, and case studies (simulation). Post-implementation the interviews highlighted that comprehensive training increased pharmacists' confidence in providing the service, however, training of other pharmacy staff and patient recruitment strategies were highlighted as a need in future. CONCLUSIONS: Structured, multi-modal training involving simulated and inter-professional learning is effective in preparing selected community pharmacists for the implementation of new services in the context of hypertension management. This training could be further enhanced to prepare pharmacists for the challenges encountered in implementing and evaluating services in practice.

An exploration of clinical interventions provided by pharmacists within a complex asthma service.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists in Australia are accessible health care professionals, and their provision of clinical pharmacy interventions in a range of areas has been proven to improve patient outcomes. Individual clinical pharmacy interventions in the area of asthma management have been very successful. An understanding of the nature of these interventions will inform future pharmacy services. What we do not know is when pharmacists provide a complex asthma service, what elements of that service (interventions) they choose to deliver. OBJECTIVE: To explore the scope and frequency of asthma-related clinical interventions provided by pharmacists to patients in an evidence-based complex asthma service. METHODS: Pharmacists from 4 states/territories of Australia were trained in asthma management. People with asthma had 3 or 4 visits to the pharmacy. Guided by a structured patient file, the pharmacist assessed the patient's asthma and management and provided interventions where and when considered appropriate, based on their clinical decision making skills. The interventions were recorded in a checklist in the patient file. They were then analysed descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Pharmacists provided 22,909 clinical pharmacy interventions over the service to 570 patients (398 of whom completed the service). The most frequently delivered interventions were in the themes 'Education on asthma', 'Addressing trigger factors', 'Medications - safe and effective use' and 'Explore patient perspectives'. The patients had a high and ongoing need for interventions. Pharmacists selected interventions based on their assessment of perceived need then revisited and reinforced these interventions. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists identified a number of areas in which patients required interventions to assist with their asthma management. Many of these were perceived to require continuing reinforcement over the duration of the service. Pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement to assess patients and provide clinical pharmacy interventions across a range of asthma management needs.

The reliability and utility of spirometry performed on people with asthma in community pharmacies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability and the utility of spirometry generated by community pharmacists participating in two large asthma intervention trials of 892 people. METHODS: The Pharmacy Asthma Care Program (PACP) and the Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS) involved up to four visits to the pharmacy over 6 months for counseling and goal setting. Pharmacists performed spirometry according to ATS/ERS guidelines to inform management. The proportion of A-E, F quality tests, as per EasyOne QC grades, were recorded. Lung function results between visits and for participants referred/not referred to their general practitioner on the basis of spirometry were compared. RESULTS: Complete data from 2593 spirometry sessions were recorded, 68.5% of spirometry sessions achieved three acceptable tests with between-test repeatability of 150 ml or less (A or B quality), 96% of spirometry sessions included at least one test that met ATS/ERS acceptability criteria. About 39.1% of participants had FEV1/FVC values below the lower limit of normal (LNN), indicating a respiratory obstruction. As a result of the service, there was a significant increase in FEV1 and FEV1/FVC and asthma control. Lung function values were significantly poorer for participants referred to their general practitioner, compared with those not referred, on the basis of spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists are able to reliably achieve spirometry results meeting ATS/ERS guidelines in people with asthma. Significant improvements in airway obstruction were demonstrated with the pharmacy services. Pharmacists interpreted lung function results to identify airway obstruction for referral, making this a useful technique for review of people with asthma in the community.

A pharmacy asthma service achieves a change in patient responses from increased awareness to taking responsibility for their asthma.

OBJECTIVES: If novel health services are to be implemented and sustained in practice, the perceptions and views of patients form a critical part of their evaluation. The aims of this study were to explore patient's perceptions and experiences with a pharmacy asthma service and to investigate if there was a change over time. METHODS: Interviews and focus groups were conducted with patients participating in the asthma service at three time points. Data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using a framework approach. KEY FINDINGS: The service led to an enhanced awareness and understanding of asthma, changes in participants' beliefs and attitudes towards asthma management, changes in asthma-related health behaviours and improved self-efficacy. Participants were very positive about the service and the role of the pharmacist in asthma management. There was a shift in participant perceptions and views, from being at an abstract level in those who had completed just one visit of the service to a more experiential level in those who had experienced the entire comprehensive asthma service. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained experience/multiple visits in a service may lead to more concrete changes in patient perceptions of severity, beliefs, health behaviours and enhanced self-efficacy and control. The study highlights a need for such asthma services in the community.

Performance of a brief asthma control screening tool in community pharmacy: a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care. AIMS: To describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6). METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6. RESULTS: A total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.

Feasibility and effectiveness of an evidence-based asthma service in Australian community pharmacies: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of a pharmacy asthma service in primary care. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in community pharmacies in four Australian states/territories in 2009. Specially trained pharmacists were randomized to deliver an asthma service in two groups, providing three versus four consultations over 6 months. People with poorly controlled asthma or no recent asthma review were included. Follow-up for 12 months after service completion occurred in 30% of randomly selected completing patients. Outcomes included change in asthma control (poor and fair/good) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, inhaler technique, quality of life, perceived control, adherence, asthma knowledge, and asthma action plan ownership. RESULTS: Ninety-six pharmacists enrolled 570 patients, with 398 (70%) completing. Asthma control significantly improved with both the three- and four-visit service, with no significant difference between groups (good/fair control 29% and 21% at baseline, 61% and 59% at end, p = .791). Significant improvements were also evident in the ACQ (mean change 0.56), inhaler technique (17-33% correct baseline, 57-72% end), asthma action plan ownership (19% baseline, 56% end), quality of life, adherence, perceived control, and asthma knowledge, with no significant difference between groups for any variable. Outcomes were sustained at 12 months post-service. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacy asthma service delivered clinically important improvements in both a three-visit and four-visit service. Pharmacists were able to recruit and deliver the service with minimal intervention, suggesting it is practical to implement in practice. The three-visit service would be feasible and effective to implement, with a review at 12 months.

Experiences of community pharmacists involved in the delivery of a specialist asthma service in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The role of community pharmacists in disease state management has been mooted for some years. Despite a number of trials of disease state management services, there is scant literature into the engagement of, and with, pharmacists in such trials. This paper reports pharmacists' feedback as providers of a Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS), a trial coordinated across four academic research centres in Australia in 2009. We also propose recommendations for optimal involvement of pharmacists in academic research. METHODS: Feedback about the pharmacists' experiences was sought via their participation in either a focus group or telephone interview (for those unable to attend their scheduled focus group) at one of three time points. A semi-structured interview guide focused discussion on the pharmacists' training to provide the asthma service, their interactions with health professionals and patients as per the service protocol, and the future for this type of service. Focus groups were facilitated by two researchers, and the individual interviews were shared between three researchers, with data transcribed verbatim and analysed manually. RESULTS: Of 93 pharmacists who provided the PAMS, 25 were involved in a focus group and seven via telephone interview. All pharmacists approached agreed to provide feedback. In general, the pharmacists engaged with both the service and research components, and embraced their roles as innovators in the trial of a new service. Some experienced challenges in the recruitment of patients into the service and the amount of research-related documentation, and collaborative patient-centred relationships with GPs require further attention. Specific service components, such as the spirometry, were well received by the pharmacists and their patients. Professional rewards included satisfaction from their enhanced practice, and pharmacists largely envisaged a future for the service. CONCLUSIONS: The PAMS provided pharmacists an opportunity to become involved in an innovative service delivery model, supported by the researchers, yet trained and empowered to implement the clinical service throughout the trial period and beyond. The balance between support and independence appeared crucial in the pharmacists' engagement with the trial. Their feedback was overwhelmingly positive, while useful suggestions were identified for future academic trials.