Validation of a tool for reporting pharmacists' interventions in everyday community pharmacy.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The French Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SFPC) asked a group of experts to adapt the SFPC hospital pharmacists' interventions reporting tool for use in community pharmacy practice. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for the routine reporting of pharmacists' interventions in French community settings. METHODS: Two groups of community pharmacists coded reports of 60 typical pharmacists' interventions. One group was "experts" (n = 4) who had participated in the development of the tool (internal validation) and the other were "external" community pharmacists (n = 6), naïve to the tool (external validation). The Kappa coefficient was used to assess the inter-reliability of classification between participants. A 4-level Likert scale was used to evaluate ease of use and acceptability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The tool we developed for recording and classifying PIs has 19 items; 11 non-ordered categories describing drug-related problems; and 7 items describing interventions. Two tables of definitions were provided to help community pharmacists in the classification. The mean κ statistic was (i) 0.63 for experts and 0.73 for external community pharmacists in categorizing drug-related problems and (ii) 0.69 for experts and 0.75 for external community pharmacists in categorizing interventions. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: A specific tool for the documentation of pharmacists' interventions in community pharmacies is now available in French. Besides being useful to describe pharmacists' interventions in studies in community settings, it can be used to document the pharmaceutical patient record and to support the traceability process.

Illness representation and treatment beliefs in liver transplantation: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to gain detailed insight concerning liver transplanted patients' representations about transplantation, graft rejection and immunosuppressive drugs to adapt the educational follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 patients. Each interview was recorded and fully transcribed. The verbatim was first coded according to the themes of the Common Sense Model and an inductive approach for the remaining text. RESULTS: Transplantation is perceived both as a recovery and a new chronic condition. Participants feel powerless in the face of the risk of graft rejection. This risk is perceived as out of control as it is not associated with specific symptoms and external causes. The individual knowledge gained about transplantation relies on real-life experience shared between patients. Many participants feel anxiety. It responds to stress caused by immunosuppressant medication intake, routine check-ups, potential side effects and chronicity of immunodepression. Messages stressing the importance of the tacrolimus in the medication therapy are strengthened by a pre-discharge pharmaceutical consultation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that healthcare providers should systematically seek to determine illness representations to optimize the educational follow-up. The patient education program for liver transplanted patients should include three types of intervention: individualized education, behavioral intervention and psychological support. It should provide a support for stress management and acceptance of the new chronic condition. The involvement of a clinical pharmacist is relevant.