Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently.

Exploring the heterogeneity in community pharmacist-led medication review studies - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Findings on the effectiveness of medication reviews led by community pharmacists (CPs) are often inconclusive. It has been hypothesized that studies are not sufficiently standardized, and thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions. OBJECTIVE(S): To examine differences in the way CP-led medication review studies are set up. This was accomplished by investigating (1) patient selection criteria, (2) components of the medication review interventions, (3) types of outcomes, and (4) measurement instruments used. METHODS: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials of CP-led medication reviews was carried out in PubMed and Cochrane Library. Information on patient selection, intervention components, and outcome measurements was extracted, and frequencies were analyzed. Where possible, outcomes were mapped to the Core Outcome Set (COS) for medication review studies. Finally, a network analysis was conducted to explore the influence of individual factors on outcome effects. RESULTS: In total, 30 articles (26 studies) were included. Most articles had a drug class-specific or disease-specific patient selection criterion (n = 19). Half of the articles included patients aged ≥60 years (n = 15), and in 40% (n = 12/30) patients taking 4 drugs or more. In 24 of 30 articles, a medication review was comprised with additional interventions, such as distribution of educational material and training or follow-up visits. About 40 different outcomes were extracted. Within specific outcomes, the measurement instruments varied, and COS was rarely represented. CONCLUSION: The revealed differences in patient selection, intervention delivery, and outcome assessment highlight the need for more standardization in research on CP-led medication reviews. While intervention delivery should be more precisely described to capture potential differences between interventions, outcome assessment should be standardized in terms of outcome selection by application of the COS, and with regard to the selected core outcome measurement instruments to enable comparison of the results.

Mortality and Hospitalizations Among Patients Enrolled in an Interprofessional Medication Management Program.

BACKGROUND: Measures for improving medication safety in outpatient care are often complex and involve medication reviews. Over the period 2016-2022 (with a preceeding one-year pilot phase), an interprofessional medication management program- the Medicines Initiative Saxony-Thuringia (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen, ARMIN)-was implemented in two German federal states. More than 5000 patients received a medication review by the end of 2019 by a team composed of physicians and pharmacists and were provided with joint, continuous care thereafter. METHODS: In the framework of a retrospectively registered cohort study, the mortality and hospitalizations of this population (5033 patients) were studied using routine data from a statutory health insurer (observation period 2015-2019) and compared with those of a control group (10 039 patients) determined from the routine data by propensity score matching. Mortality was compared by survival analysis (Cox regression), and hospitalization rates were compared in terms of event probabilities within two years of enrollment in the medication management program. Robustness was tested in multiple sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over the observation period, 9.3% of the ARMIN participants and 12.9% of persons in the control group died (hazard ratio of the adjusted Cox regression, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [0.76; 0.94], P = 0.001). In the first two years after inclusion, the ARMIN participants were hospitalized just as often as the persons in the control group (52.4% versus 53.4%; odds ratio from the adjusted model, 1.04 [0.96; 1.11], P = 0.347). The effects were consistent in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, participation in the ARMIN program was associated with a lower risk of death. Exploratory analyses provide clues to the potential origin of this association.

Attitudes of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management in primary care: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation. METHOD: This was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach. RESULTS: Many general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost-benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs. CONCLUSION: The perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists.

The influence of intervention complexity on barriers and facilitators in the implementation of professional pharmacy services - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies increasingly offer professional pharmacy services, whose implementation is often influenced by facilitating or obstructive implementation factors. The occurrence and composition of implementation factors vary among different services with discrete characteristics and complexity of the intervention, making it difficult to foresee potential barriers in implementation. OBJECTIVE(S): This paper investigates potential associations between intervention complexity and occurring implementation factors. METHODS: A systematic literature search on the implementation factors and intervention complexity of professional pharmacy services in the community setting was carried out in electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) throughout December 2018. Implementation factors were extracted from semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and surveys with community pharmacists and categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The complexity of each service was assessed using the following complexity parameters: (I) number of involved healthcare professions, (II) number of service components such as recruiting of patients, screening intervention, and follow-up, (III) frequency of the service, (IV) expenditure of time per patient (encounter), and (V) workflow distortion, i.e. booking appointments for intervention with the patient. Finally, the association between implementation factors and intervention complexity was analyzed by quantifying implementation factors and by relating them to specific intervention characteristics using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: 15 studies covering a broad spectrum of professional pharmacy services were included. There was a trend that in services with higher complexity more implementation factors occurred (p = 0.094). Single key complexity parameters can trigger specific implementation factors. For instance, general practitioner and pharmacy technician involvement were significantly associated with interprofessional communication and leadership engagement, respectively. CONCLUSION: Key implementation factors and associated complexity parameters seem to be of similar or more importance than the total number of implementation factors with regard to successful implementation. By assessing various complexity parameters of an intervention, potential key barriers could be identified and subsequently addressed prior to implementation.