Design of the POINT study: Pharmacotherapy Optimisation through Integration of a Non-dispensing pharmacist in a primary care Team (POINT)

__Background:__ In the Netherlands, 5.6 % of acute hospital admissions are medication-related. Almost half of these admissions are potentially preventable. Reviewing medication in patients at risk in primary care might prevent these hospital admissions. At present, implementation of medication reviews in primary care is suboptimal: pharmacists lack access to patient information, pharmacists are short of clinical knowledge and skills, and working processes of pharmacists (focus on dispensing) and general practitioners (focus on clinical practice) match poorly. Integration of the pharmacist in the primary health care team might improve pharmaceutical care outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in general practice on the safety of pharmacotherapy in the Netherlands. __Methods:__ The POINT study is a non-randomised controlled intervention study with pre-post comparison in an integrated primary care setting. We compare three different models of pharmaceutical care provision in primary care: 1) a non-dispensing pharmacist as an integral member of a primary care team, 2) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy with a predefined training in performing medication reviews and 3) a pharmacist in a community pharmacy (care as usual). In all models, GPs remain accountable for individual medication prescription. In the first model, ten non-dispensing clinical pharmacists are posted in ten primary care practices (including 5 – 10 000 patients each) for a period of 15 months. These non-dispensing pharmacists perform patient consultations, including medication reviews, and share responsibility for the pharmaceutical care provided in the practice. The two other groups consist of ten primary care practices with collaborating pharmacists. The main outcome measurement is the number of medication-related hospital admissions during follow-up. Secondary outcome measurements are potential medication errors, drug burden index and costs. Parallel to this study, a qualitative study is conducted to evaluate the feasibility of introducing a NDP in general practice. __Discussion:__ As the POINT study is a large-scale intervention study, it should provide evidence as to whether integration of a non-dispensing clinical pharmacist in primary care will result in safer pharmacotherapy. The qualitative study also generates knowledge on the optimal implementation of this model in primary care. Results are expected in 2016

Controversy and consensus on a clinical pharmacist in primary care in the Netherlands

Background Controversy about the introduction of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice hampers implementation. Objective The aim of this study is to systematically map the debate on this new role for pharmacists amongst all stakeholders to uncover and understand the controversy and consensus. Setting: Primary health care in the Netherlands. Method Q methodology. 163 participants rank-ordered statements on issues concerning the integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice. Main outcome measure: Stakeholder perspectives on the role of the non-dispensing pharmacist and pharmaceutical care in primary care. Results This study identified the consensus on various features of the non-dispensing pharmacist role as well as the financial, organisational and collaborative aspects of integrating a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice. Q factor analysis revealed four perspectives: “the independent community pharmacist”, “the independent clinical pharmacist”, “the dependent clinical pharmacist” and “the medication therapy management specialist”. These four perspectives show controversies to do with the level of professional independency of the non-dispensing pharmacist and the level of innovation of task performance. Conclusion Despite the fact that introducing new professional roles in healthcare can lead to controversy, the results of this Q study show the potential of a non-dispensing pharmacist as a pharmaceutical care provider and the willingness for interprofessional collaboration. The results from the POINT intervention study in the Netherlands will be an important next step in resolving current controversies

Medicatiescreening met Beers-criteria en STOPP/START-criteria bij de oudere patiënt: associatie tussen potentieel ongewenst geneesmiddelengebruik en geneesmiddelgerelateerde ziekenhuisopnamen

OBJECTIVE To assess the risk of medication-related hospital admissions associated with inappropriate medication use applying the Beers and the STOPP/START criteria. There are multiple screening methods to detect and reduce potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and prescribing omissions (PPOs). Whether this will result in less medication-related hospitalisations is unknown. DESIGN A nested case-control study was conducted with a subset of patients of the Hospital Admissions Related to Medication (HARM) study. METHODS Cases were defined as patients ≥65 years with a potentially preventable medication-related hospital admission. For each case one control was selected, matched on age and sex. The primary determinant was defined as the presence of one or more PlMs and/or PPOs according to the Beers 2012 and the STOPP/START criteria. The strength of the association between a PIM/PPO and a medication-related hospital admission was evaluated with multivariate logistic regression and expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (Cl95). RESULTS PlMs and PPOs detected with the STOPP/START criteria are associated with medication-related hospital admissions [OR 3.47; CI95 1.70-7.09], while for the presence of PIMs according to the Beers 2012 criteria a non-significant trend was visible (ORadj 1.49; CI95 0.90-2.47). CONCLUSION Both the STOPP/START criteria and the Beers 2012 criteria can be used to identify older people at risk for medication-related problems. The choice which set of criteria should be used is more dependent on other factors (e.g. national guidelines, practical considerations) than on the association of each set with ADR-related hospital admission

Non-dispensing pharmacist integrated in the primary care team: effect on the quality of physician’s prescribing, a non-randomised comparative study

Background Especially in elderly with polypharmacy, medication can do harm. Clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams might improve quality of pharmaceutical care. Objective To assess the effect of non-dispensing clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams on general practitioners’ prescribing quality. Setting This study was conducted in 25 primary care practices in the Netherlands. Methods Non-randomised, controlled, multi-centre, complex intervention study with pre-post comparison. First, we identified potential prescribing quality indicators from the literature and assessed their feasibility, validity, acceptability, reliability and sensitivity to change. Also, an expert panel assessed the indicators’ health impact. Next, using the final set of indicators, we measured the quality of prescribing in practices where non-dispensing pharmacists were integrated in the team (intervention group) compared to usual care (two control groups). Data were extracted anonymously from the healthcare records. Comparisons were made using mixed models correcting for potential confounders. Main outcome measure Quality of prescribing, measured with prescribing quality indicators. Results Of 388 eligible indicators reported in the literature we selected 8. In addition, two more indicators relevant for Dutch general practice were formulated by an expert panel. Scores on all 10 indicators improved in the intervention group after introduction of the non-dispensing pharmacist. However, when compared to control groups, prescribing quality improved solely on the indicator measuring monitoring of the renal function in patients using antihypertensive medication: relative risk of a monitored renal function in the intervention group compared to usual care: 1.03 (95% CI 1.01–1.05, p-value 0.010) and compared t