一位药剂师融入了澳大利亚的全科医学:一种不断发展的药物优化护理模式。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY International Journal of Pharmacy Practice Pub Date : 2023-12-19 DOI:10.1093/ijpp/riad061
Margaret Jordan, Judy Mullan, Adele Stewart, Timothy F Chen
{"title":"一位药剂师融入了澳大利亚的全科医学:一种不断发展的药物优化护理模式。","authors":"Margaret Jordan, Judy Mullan, Adele Stewart, Timothy F Chen","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riad061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The general practice pharmacist (GPP) role in Australia is evolving. A pilot GPP model of care developed to optimize medicines for patients at risk of medicine-related harm was evaluated. The aims of this study were 2-fold: to evaluate the GPP model of care on medicines optimization, with a focus on deprescribing, in a population at risk of harm due to their medicines, or clinical condition, and to explore the perspectives of study participants. This single practice study involved two phases. Phase 1 (September 2019-May 2020): at risk patients were referred to the GPP for medication reconciliation, recommendations for optimization, and when appropriate, deprescribing support, especially for opioids. Medication plans were developed with patients, GPs, and the GPP. Quantitative data collected from patient records included demographics, discrepancies, medicines reviewed, GPP recommendations and uptake, and medicines deprescribed. Opioid-related data included dose changes from baseline, at 6 and 9 months, standardized to oral morphine equivalents. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Phase 2 (7-21 September 2020): qualitative evaluation using semi-structured interviews was undertaken, to explore the perspectives of GP and patient participants of the GPP model of care. Interview data were thematically analysed. The study had ethical approval. Phase 1: 198 multimorbid patients with multiple medications [median = 13 (9-16)] had at least one GPP consultation (n = 243). Discrepancies were resolved through 88% of GPP consultations; deprescribing commenced or occurred in 54%. Acceptance of GPP recommendations was 86%. Opioids were the most common medicines deprescribed (42% ceased). The baseline median opioid dose [44.4 (30-90) mg] was significantly reduced at 6 months [13.5 (0-40) mg] and 9 months [7 (0-30) mg], P < .0001. Phase 2: Thematic analysis of 28 interviews (10 GPs, 3 practice personnel, 10 patients, 5 carers) identified four key themes: safer foundation for deprescribing, deprescribing opportunities recognition, benefits of embedded GPP, and a supported approach to shared decision-making. General practice provides opportunities for medicine optimization and deprescribing. This study has demonstrated a GPP model of care that achieved functional deprescribing to reduce potential harm in a population at risk and addressed recognized barriers.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pharmacist integrated into a general practice in Australia: an evolving model of care in medicines optimization.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Jordan, Judy Mullan, Adele Stewart, Timothy F Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijpp/riad061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The general practice pharmacist (GPP) role in Australia is evolving. A pilot GPP model of care developed to optimize medicines for patients at risk of medicine-related harm was evaluated. The aims of this study were 2-fold: to evaluate the GPP model of care on medicines optimization, with a focus on deprescribing, in a population at risk of harm due to their medicines, or clinical condition, and to explore the perspectives of study participants. This single practice study involved two phases. Phase 1 (September 2019-May 2020): at risk patients were referred to the GPP for medication reconciliation, recommendations for optimization, and when appropriate, deprescribing support, especially for opioids. Medication plans were developed with patients, GPs, and the GPP. Quantitative data collected from patient records included demographics, discrepancies, medicines reviewed, GPP recommendations and uptake, and medicines deprescribed. Opioid-related data included dose changes from baseline, at 6 and 9 months, standardized to oral morphine equivalents. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Phase 2 (7-21 September 2020): qualitative evaluation using semi-structured interviews was undertaken, to explore the perspectives of GP and patient participants of the GPP model of care. Interview data were thematically analysed. The study had ethical approval. Phase 1: 198 multimorbid patients with multiple medications [median = 13 (9-16)] had at least one GPP consultation (n = 243). Discrepancies were resolved through 88% of GPP consultations; deprescribing commenced or occurred in 54%. Acceptance of GPP recommendations was 86%. Opioids were the most common medicines deprescribed (42% ceased). The baseline median opioid dose [44.4 (30-90) mg] was significantly reduced at 6 months [13.5 (0-40) mg] and 9 months [7 (0-30) mg], P < .0001. Phase 2: Thematic analysis of 28 interviews (10 GPs, 3 practice personnel, 10 patients, 5 carers) identified four key themes: safer foundation for deprescribing, deprescribing opportunities recognition, benefits of embedded GPP, and a supported approach to shared decision-making. General practice provides opportunities for medicine optimization and deprescribing. This study has demonstrated a GPP model of care that achieved functional deprescribing to reduce potential harm in a population at risk and addressed recognized barriers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全科医生药剂师(GPP)在澳大利亚的角色正在演变。评估了为有药物相关伤害风险的患者优化药物而开发的GPP护理试点模型。这项研究的目的有两个:评估GPP药物优化护理模式,重点是在因药物或临床状况而面临伤害风险的人群中进行描述,并探索研究参与者的观点。这项单独的实践研究涉及两个阶段。第一阶段(2019年9月至2020年5月):高危患者被转介至GPP进行药物调节、优化建议,并在适当的时候取消描述支持,尤其是对阿片类药物的支持。药物计划由患者、全科医生和全科医生共同制定。从患者记录中收集的定量数据包括人口统计数据、差异、审查的药物、GPP建议和服用情况以及药物描述。阿片类药物相关数据包括从基线到6个月和9个月的剂量变化,标准化为口服吗啡当量。采用描述性统计进行分析。第二阶段(2020年9月7日至21日):采用半结构化访谈进行定性评估,以探索全科医生和全科医生护理模式患者参与者的观点。访谈数据按主题进行分析。这项研究得到了伦理方面的认可。第1阶段:198名接受多种药物治疗的多发病患者[中位数=13(9-16)]至少接受了一次GPP咨询(n=243)。88%的GPP咨询解决了差异;54%的患者开始或发生了去描述。GPP建议的接受率为86%。阿片类药物是最常见的药物(42%已停用)。基线中位阿片类药物剂量[44.4(30-90)mg/在6个月[13.5(0-40)mg/和9个月[7(0-30)mg/]时显著降低,P<.0001。第二阶段:对28次访谈(10名全科医生、3名执业人员、10名患者、5名护理人员)的主题分析确定了四个关键主题:更安全的脱描述基础、脱描述机会识别、嵌入式全科医生的好处以及共享决策的支持方法。全科医学为药物的优化和描述提供了机会。这项研究展示了一种GPP护理模式,该模式实现了功能描述,以减少风险人群的潜在伤害,并解决了公认的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A pharmacist integrated into a general practice in Australia: an evolving model of care in medicines optimization.

The general practice pharmacist (GPP) role in Australia is evolving. A pilot GPP model of care developed to optimize medicines for patients at risk of medicine-related harm was evaluated. The aims of this study were 2-fold: to evaluate the GPP model of care on medicines optimization, with a focus on deprescribing, in a population at risk of harm due to their medicines, or clinical condition, and to explore the perspectives of study participants. This single practice study involved two phases. Phase 1 (September 2019-May 2020): at risk patients were referred to the GPP for medication reconciliation, recommendations for optimization, and when appropriate, deprescribing support, especially for opioids. Medication plans were developed with patients, GPs, and the GPP. Quantitative data collected from patient records included demographics, discrepancies, medicines reviewed, GPP recommendations and uptake, and medicines deprescribed. Opioid-related data included dose changes from baseline, at 6 and 9 months, standardized to oral morphine equivalents. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Phase 2 (7-21 September 2020): qualitative evaluation using semi-structured interviews was undertaken, to explore the perspectives of GP and patient participants of the GPP model of care. Interview data were thematically analysed. The study had ethical approval. Phase 1: 198 multimorbid patients with multiple medications [median = 13 (9-16)] had at least one GPP consultation (n = 243). Discrepancies were resolved through 88% of GPP consultations; deprescribing commenced or occurred in 54%. Acceptance of GPP recommendations was 86%. Opioids were the most common medicines deprescribed (42% ceased). The baseline median opioid dose [44.4 (30-90) mg] was significantly reduced at 6 months [13.5 (0-40) mg] and 9 months [7 (0-30) mg], P < .0001. Phase 2: Thematic analysis of 28 interviews (10 GPs, 3 practice personnel, 10 patients, 5 carers) identified four key themes: safer foundation for deprescribing, deprescribing opportunities recognition, benefits of embedded GPP, and a supported approach to shared decision-making. General practice provides opportunities for medicine optimization and deprescribing. This study has demonstrated a GPP model of care that achieved functional deprescribing to reduce potential harm in a population at risk and addressed recognized barriers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Gender and ethnicity bias in generative artificial intelligence text-to-image depiction of pharmacists. Lifeguard Pharmacy: the co-development of a new community pharmacy response service for people in danger from domestic abuse or suicidal ideation. The relationship between psychological burden and providing assistance with taking medication among caregivers of patients with dementia: a cross-sectional study. Perceptions and experiences of community pharmacists with off-label prescribing in the pediatric population. Community pharmacists' attitudes towards checking prescriptions: a cross-sectional survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1