A critical appraisal of guidelines for electronic communication between patients and clinicians: the need to modernize current recommendations

Background Patient-provider electronic communication has proliferated in recent years, yet there is a dearth of published research either leading to, or including, recommendations that improve clinical care and prevent unintended negative consequences. We critically appraise published guidelines and suggest an agenda for future work in this area. Objective To understand how existing guidelines align with current practice, evidence, and technology. Methods We performed a narrative review of provider-targeted guidelines for electronic communication between patients and providers, searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases using relevant terms. We limited the search to articles published in English, and manually searched the citations of relevant articles. For each article, we identified and evaluated the suggested practices. Results Across 11 identified guidelines, the primary focus was on technical and administrative concerns, rather than on relational communication. Some of the security practices recommended by the guidelines are no longer needed because of shifts in technology. It is unclear the extent to which the recommendations that are still relevant are being followed. Moreover, there is no guideline-cited evidence of the effectiveness of the practices that have been proposed. Conclusion Our analysis revealed major weaknesses in current guidelines for electronic communication between patients and providers: the guidelines appear to be based on minimal evidence and offer little guidance on how best to use electronic tools to communicate effectively. Further work is needed to systematically evaluate and identify effective practices, create a framework to evaluate quality of communication, and assess the relationship between electronic communication and quality of care

Practical Strategies for Pharmacist Integration with Primary Care: A Workbook.

This workbook is a practical set of tips and resources to assist pharmacists in providing clinical pharmacy services to primary care providers and their patients. The content was written based on experiences in Vermont in 2014, however the topics should generalize to pharmacists in other areas

Informing NHS policy in 'digital-first primary care': a rapid evidence synthesis

Background In ‘digital-first primary care’ models of health-care delivery, a patient’s first point of contact with a general practitioner or other health professional is through a digital channel, rather than a face-to-face consultation. Patients are able to access advice and treatment remotely from their home or workplace via a number of different technologies. Objectives This rapid responsive evidence synthesis was undertaken to inform NHS England policy in ‘digital-first primary care’. It was conducted in two stages: (1) scoping the published evidence and (2) addressing a refined set of questions produced by NHS England from the evidence retrieved during the scoping stage. Data sources Searches were conducted of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and PROSPERO were searched in July 2018) and relevant research/policy and government websites, as well as the National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery Research programme database of ongoing and completed projects. No date or geographical limitations were applied. Review methods After examining the initial scoping material, NHS England provided a list of questions relating to the potential effects of digital modes and models of engagement, and the contracting and integration of these models into primary care. Systematic reviews and evidence syntheses, including evidence on the use of digital (online) modes and models of engagement between patients and primary care, were examined more closely, as was ongoing research and any incidentally identified primary studies focused on the use of digital (online) modes and models of engagement. All records were screened by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or consulting a third reviewer. Results Evidence suggests that uptake of existing digital modes of engagement is currently low. Patients who use digital alternatives to face-to-face consultations are likely to be younger, female and have higher income and education levels. There is some evidence that online triage tools can divert demand away from primary care, but results vary between interventions and outcome measures. A number of potential barriers exist to using digital alternatives to face-to-face consultations, including inadequate NHS technology and staff concerns about workload and confidentiality. There are currently insufficient empirical data to either substantiate or allay such concerns. Very little evidence exists on outcomes related to quality of care, service delivery, benefits or harms for patients, or on financial costs/cost-effectiveness. No studies examining how to contract and commission alternatives to face-to-face consultations were identified. Limitations The quality of the included reviews was variable. Poor reporting of methodology and a lack of adequate study details were common issues. Much of the evidence focused on exploring stakeholder views rather than on objective measurement of potential impacts. The current evidence synthesis is based on a rapid scoping exercise and cannot provide the breadth or depth of insight that might have been achieved with a full systematic review. Conclusions Rapid scoping of the literature suggests that there is little high-quality evidence relating to ‘digital-first primary care’ as defined by NHS England. The broader evidence on alternatives to face-to-face consultation addresses certain policy-maker concerns, such as the possible impact of new technologies on workload and workforce, inequalities, local implementation and integration with existing services. However, although this evidence gives an insight into the views and experiences of health professionals in relation to such concerns, quantitative empirical data are lacking

Embedded Pharmacists in Primary Care

As healthcare delivery moves from a provider-centric approach to a more patient-centric approach, systems and payers need to reimagine how care and team-based care is delivered to patients and reimbursed. Thus, the goal should be to see the right patient, by the right provider, in the right place, for the right price, and where appropriate, with the use of the right pharmaceutical(s) – “5 P’s”. There continues to be a reduction in physicians that are pursuing primary care roles in the United States, thus exacerbating the ability to meet patient demand. Most patient encounters begin with or end with the prescribing of medication. Thus, a future where pharmacists are embedded in primary care settings allows these pharmacists to collaborate at the point-of-prescribing (i.e., in-clinic) and provides tremendous benefits to providers and patients. The pharmacist workforce is educated at the doctoral level, yet vastly underutilized and can assist in a collaborative approach in primary care. The collection of articles in the Special Issue “Embedded Pharmacists in Primary Care” highlight examples of models that have included pharmacists in the ambulatory setting providing services in chronic disease management, comprehensive medication management, and care of specific conditions such as diabetes

Shared decision-making for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended

World Alzheimer report 2016: improving healthcare for people living with dementia: coverage, quality and costs now and in the future

The World Alzheimer Report 2016, Improving healthcare for people living with dementia: Coverage, quality and costs now and in the future, reviews research evidence on the elements of healthcare for people with dementia, and, using economic modelling, suggests how it should be improved and made more efficient. The report argues that current dementia healthcare services are over-specialised, and that a rebalancing is required with a more prominent role for primary and community care. This would increase capacity, limit the increased costs associated with scaling up coverage of care, and, coupled with the introduction of care pathways and case management, improve the coordination and integration of care. Modelling of the costs of care pathways was carried out in Canada, China, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and Switzerland, to estimate the costs of dementia healthcare under different assumptions regarding delivery systems. The report was researched and authored by Prof Martin Prince, Ms Adelina Comas-Herrera, Prof Martin Knapp, Dr Maëlenn Guerchet and Ms Maria Karagiannidou from The Global Observatory for Ageing and Dementia Care, King’s College London and the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), London School of Economics and Political Science

Pharmacy Practice and Administration

The scope of the Special Issue is research and reviews on evaluations of current practice, innovations in medication management, developments in therapeutics, and pharmaceutical science research that informs and improves practice and administration, as well as the social and administrative pharmacy. We will mainly feature original research, reviews, short reports, and clinical studies, but also case reports, descriptive/how-to, and commentary submissions for consideration