Preventing hospital admissions by reviewing medication (PHARM) in primary care: design of the cluster randomised, controlled, multi-centre PHARM-study

Background: Medication can be effective but can also be harmful and even cause hospital admissions. Medication review or pharmacotherapy review has often been proposed as a solution to prevent these admissions and to improve the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy. However, most published randomised controlled trials on pharmacotherapy reviews showed no or little effect on morbidity and mortality. Therefore we designed the PHARM (Preventing Hospital Admissions by Reviewing Medication)-study with the objective to study the effect of the total pharmaceutical care process on medication related hospital admissions and on adverse drug events, survival and quality of life. Methods/Design: The PHARM-study is designed as a cluster randomised, controlled, multi-centre study in an integrated primary care setting. Patients with a high risk of a medication related hospital admission are included in the study with randomisation at GP (general practitioner) level. We aim to include 14200 patients, 7100 in each arm, from at least 142 pharmacy practices. The intervention consists of a patient-centred, structured, pharmaceutical care process. This process consists of several steps, is continuous and occurrs over multiple encounters of patients and clinicians. The steps of this pharmaceutical care process are a pharmaceutical anamnesis, a review of the patient's pharmacotherapy, the formulation and execution of a pharmaceutical care plan combined with the monitoring and follow up evaluation of the care plan and pharmacotherapy. The patient's own pharmacist and GP carry out the intervention. The control group receives usual care. The primary outcome of the study is the frequency of hospital admissions related to medication within the study period of 12 months of each patient. The secondary outcomes are survival, quality of life, adverse drug events and severe adverse drug events. The outcomes will be analysed by using mixed-effects Cox models. Discussion: The PHARM-study is one of the largest controlled trials to study the effectiveness of the total pharmaceutical care process. The study should therefore provide evidence as to whether such a pharmaceutical care process should be implemented in the primary care setting

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

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

BackgroundEspecially in elderly with polypharmacy, medication can do harm. Clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams might improve quality of pharmaceutical care.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of non-dispensing clinical pharmacists integrated in primary care teams on general practitioners' prescribing quality.SettingThis study was conducted in 25 primary care practices in the Netherlands.MethodsNon-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 measureQuality of prescribing, measured with prescribing quality indicators.ResultsOf 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 to usual care plus: 1.04 (1.01-1.06, p-value 0.004).ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate a consistent effect of the introduction of non-dispensing clinical pharmacists in the primary care team on the quality of physician's prescribing. This study is part of the POINT-study, which was registered at The Netherlands National Trial Register with trial registration number NTR-4389

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

textabstractBackground 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

Pharmacists' and general practitioners' pharmacology knowledge and pharmacotherapy skills

Understanding differences in the pharmacology knowledge and pharmacotherapy skills of pharmacists and physicians is vital to optimizing interprofessional collaboration and education. This study investigated these differences and the potential influence of work experience. The pharmacology knowledge and pharmacotherapy skills of pharmacists, general practitioners (GPs), and trainees were compared, using a written assessment; 294 participants were included. Overall scores (mean ± SD) ranged from 69.3% ± 6.5% to 76.5% ± 9.5% for basic knowledge, 70.3% ± 10.8% to 79.7% ± 8.4% for applied knowledge, and 66.3% ± 21.1% to 84.7% ± 20.7% for pharmacotherapy skills (analysis of variance all P  .05). The GPs scored the lowest for pharmacotherapy skills (P < .05). More work experience was associated with better knowledge of applied pharmacology among pharmacists (by 2% per 10 work-years), but with poorer pharmacotherapy skills among pharmacists and GPs (by 3% and 4% per 10 work-years, respectively). In conclusion, pharmacists and GPs differ in their knowledge and skills, and these differences become more pronounced with more work experience. In general, pharmacists outperform pharmacist trainees, whereas GP trainees outperform GPs. These differences could be important for interdisciplinary collaboration and education

Opioid analgesic use in Australia and The Netherlands: a cross-country comparison

Background Increasing use of opioid analgesics (OA) has been reported worldwide. Objective To compare the use of OA in two countries in order to better understand these trends. Setting Outpatient settings in Australia and The Netherlands. Method We analysed publicly available government data on outpatient OA dispensing over 15\ua0years (2000–2014). We compared dispensing trends for specific OA and explored medical (national clinical guidelines), contextual and policy-related factors to explain differences in use between the two countries. Main outcome measure OA prescribing in Australia and The Netherlands, absolute volume of use, preferred types of opioids and changes over time. Results The average annual increase in OA prescribing was 10% in Australia and 8% in The Netherlands between 2000 and 2014. In 2014, the total use of OA was 10.0 daily defined doses (DDD)/1000 population/day in Australia and 9.4 DDD/1000 population/day in The Netherlands. In Australia, the most commonly prescribed opioids were oxycodone and tramadol, compared to fentanyl and tramadol in The Netherlands. We found differences in prescribing guidelines, culture of prescribing and regulatory frameworks that could explain some of the observed differences. Conclusion OA prescribing has increased remarkably in both countries between 2000 and 2014 but the types of prescribed OA vary. Differences in national evidence-based guidelines influenced the types of OA used. Prescribing culture as well as regulatory policies and costs, may also contribute to the different patterns of OA use