Improving transitional patient safety: research protocol of the Transitional Incident Prevention Programme

__Introduction:__ Patient transitions between primary and hospital care include referral, discharge, and simultaneous care by the outpatient clinic and the general practitioner (GP). Research on referrals and discharge shows that safety incidents in these transitions are common. We developed the multifaceted Transitional Incident Prevention Programme (TIPP), which aims to improve transitional patient safety preventing future incidents. With this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the TIPP programme on transitional patient safety, and to evaluate its implementation and the acceptance in GP-practices and hospitals. __Methods:__ The TIPP intervention study is a controlled before and after study combined with qualitative methods. The study will be conducted in both rural and urban settings including three hospitals, together with referring primary care practices. The TIPP intervention is aimed at three aspects of transitional safety: 1) Healthcare process, 2) Transitional patient safety culture, and 3) Patient participation. Together with the participating hospital departments, GPs and patients, we will develop a tailored improvement programme, taking into account the different context of each setting. __Discussion:__ The purpose of this protocol paper is to present and discuss the research design and methodology of the TIPP intervention

The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists in primary care practice and the impact on health outcomes: A systematic review

Background: A non-dispensing pharmacist conducts clinical pharmacy services aimed at optimizing patients individual pharmacotherapy. Embedding a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice enables collaboration, probably enhancing patient care. The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams varies strongly between settings. The degree of integration may be a determinant for its success. Objectives: This study investigates how the degree of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist impacts medication related health outcomes in primary care. Methods: In this literature review we searched two electronic databases and the reference list of published literature reviews for studies about clinical pharmacy services performed by non-dispensing pharmacists physically co-located in primary care practice. We assessed the degree of integration via key dimensions of integration based on the conceptual framework of Walshe and Smith. We included English language studies of any design that had a control group or baseline comparison published from 1966 to June 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to correlate the degree of integration to health outcomes. The analysis was stratified for disease-specific and patient-centered clinical pharmacy services. Results: Eighty-nine health outcomes in 60 comparative studies contributed to the analysis. The accumulated evidence from these studies shows no impact of the degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists on health outcomes. For disease specific clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 75%, 63% and 59%. For patient-centered clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 55%, 57% and 70%. Conclusions: Full integration adds value to patient-centered clinical pharmacy services, but not to disease-specific clinical pharmacy services. To obtain maximum benefits of clinical pharmacy services for patients with multiple medications and comorbidities, full integration of non-dispensing pharmacists should be promoted

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

Reducing unnecessary vitamin testing in general practice: barriers and facilitators according to general practitioners and patients

OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B12 laboratory tests ordered. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195 000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study. RESULTS: The most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B12. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour. CONCLUSION: To achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is required to measure the effect of these strategies on the number of vitamin test requests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: WAG/mb/16/039555

Improving transitional patient safety: research protocol of the Transitional Incident Prevention Programme

Introduction: Patient transitions between primary and hospital care include referral, discharge, and simultaneous care by the outpatient clinic and the general practitioner (GP). Research on referrals and discharge shows that safety incidents in these transitions are common. We developed the multifaceted Transitional Incident Prevention Programme (TIPP), which aims to improve transitional patient safety preventing future incidents. With this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the TIPP programme on transitional patient safety, and to evaluate its implementation and the acceptance in GP-practices and hospitals. Methods: The TIPP intervention study is a controlled before and after study combined with qualitative methods. The study will be conducted in both rural and urban settings including three hospitals, together with referring primary care practices. The TIPP intervention is aimed at three aspects of transitional safety: 1) Healthcare process, 2) Transitional patient safety culture, and 3) Patient participation. Together with the participating hospital departments, GPs and patients, we will develop a tailored improvement programme, taking into account the different context of each setting. Discussion: The purpose of this protocol paper is to present and discuss the research design and methodology of the TIPP intervention. Trial registration: Dutch trial register NTR481

The degree of integration of pharmacists in primary care and the impact on health outcomes

__Background:__ A non-dispensing pharmacist conducts clinical pharmacy services aimed at optimizing patients individual pharmacotherapy. Embedding a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice enables collaboration, probably enhancing patient care. The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams varies strongly between settings. The degree of integration may be a determinant for its success. __Objectives:__ This study investigates how the degree of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist impacts medication related health outcomes in primary care. __Methods:__ In this literature review we searched two electronic databases and the reference list of published literature reviews for studies about clinical pharmacy services performed by non-dispensing pharmacists physically co-located in primary care practice. We assessed the degree of integration via key dimensions of integration based on the conceptual framework of Walshe and Smith. We included English language studies of any design that had a control group or baseline comparison published from 1966 to June 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to correlate the degree of integration to health outcomes. The analysis was stratified for disease-specific and patient-centred clinical pharmacy services. __Results:__ Eighty-nine health outcomes in 60 comparative studies contributed to the analysis. The accumulated evidence from these studies shows no impact of the degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists on health outcomes. For disease specific clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 75%, 63% and 59%. For patient-centred clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 55%, 57% and 70%. __Conclusions:__ Full integration adds value to patient-centred clinical pharmacy services, but not to disease-specific clinical pharmacy services. To obtain maximum benefits of clinical pharmacy services for patients with multiple medications and comorbidities, full integration of non-dispensing pharmacists should be promoted

The degree of integration of pharmacists in primary care and the impact on health outcomes

Background: A non-dispensing pharmacist conducts clinical pharmacy services aimed at optimizing patients individual pharmacotherapy. Embedding a non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care practice enables collaboration, probably enhancing patient care. The degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists into multidisciplinary health care teams varies strongly between settings. The degree of integration may be a determinant for its success. Objectives: This study investigates how the degree of integration of a non-dispensing pharmacist impacts medication related health outcomes in primary care. Methods: In this literature review we searched two electronic databases and the reference list of published literature reviews for studies about clinical pharmacy services performed by non-dispensing pharmacists physically co-located in primary care practice. We assessed the degree o integration via key dimensions of integration based on the conceptual framework of Walshe and Smith. We included English language studies of any design that had a control group or baseline comparison published from 1966 to June 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to correlate the degree of integration to health outcomes. The analysis was stratified for disease-specific and patient-centered clinical pharmacy services. Results: Eighty-nine health outcomes in 60 comparative studies contributed to the analysis. The accumulated evidence from these studies shows no impact of the degree of integration of non-dispensing pharmacists on health outcomes. For disease specific clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 75%, 63% and 59%. For patient-centered clinical pharmacy services the percentage of improved health outcomes for none, partial and fully integrated NDPs is respectively 55%, 57% and 70%. Conclusions: Full integration adds value to patient-centered clinical pharmacy services, but not to disease-specific clinical pharmacy services. To obtain maximum benefits of clinical pharmacy services for patients with multiple medications and comorbidities, full integration of non-dispensing pharmacists should be promoted

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