Dataset Information

Using qualitative process evaluation in the development of a complex intervention to advance person-centred practice by pharmacists: The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC).

ABSTRACT: In order to effectively evaluate complex interventions, there have been calls for the further integration of qualitative methods. Qualitative process studies of brief alcohol interventions and medicines reviews are notably lacking. This article provides a grounded example through the presentation of findings from an embedded qualitative process evaluation of a multi-site, pilot cluster RCT of a new intervention: the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC). MAC is designed to increase the capacity of community pharmacists (CPs) to conduct person-centred medicines reviews in which the subject of alcohol consumption is raised in connection with medications and associated health conditions. Participant-focused qualitative studies (interviews, observations, recorded consultations) sought to understand how CPs engaged with and implemented MAC in context. This article documents effects of the intervention on developing person-centred consultation practice and highlights how qualitative process studies can be used formatively to develop middle range programme theory and to optimise intervention design for testing in a definitive RCT.

SUBMITTER: Madden M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689404 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using qualitative process evaluation in the development of a complex intervention to advance person-centred practice by pharmacists: The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC).

Madden Mary M Morris Stephanie S Stewart Duncan D Atkin Karl K Gough Brendan B Mills Thomas T McCambridge Jim J

SSM. Qualitative research in health 20211201

In order to effectively evaluate complex interventions, there have been calls for the further integration of qualitative methods. Qualitative process studies of brief alcohol interventions and medicines reviews are notably lacking. This article provides a grounded example through the presentation of findings from an embedded qualitative process evaluation of a multi-site, pilot cluster RCT of a new intervention: the Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC). MAC is designed to increase the capaci ...[more]

PMID: 34988545

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alcohol interventions are important to the developing public health role of community pharmacies. The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC) is a new intervention, co-produced with community pharmacists (CPs) and patients, which involves a CP practice development programme designed to integrate discussion of alcohol within existing NHS medicine review services. We conducted a pilot trial of the MAC and its delivery to investigate all study procedures to inform progression to a definitive trial. METHODS:This cluster pilot RCT was conducted in 10 community pharmacies in Yorkshire, UK, with a CP from each who regularly conducted Medicine Use Review (MUR) and New Medicine Service (NMS) consultations. Randomisation was conducted using a secure remote randomisation service. Intervention CPs (n?=?5) were trained to deliver the MAC in MUR/NMS consultations. Control CPs (n?=?5) provided these services as usual. Consecutive MUR/NMS patients were asked by CPs to participate, screened for eligibility (consumption of alcohol at least twice per week), and baseline data collected for those eligible. A two-month follow-up telephone interview was conducted. Blinding of CPs was not possible, but patients were blinded to the alcohol focus of the trial. Primary outcomes were total weekly UK units (8?g of ethanol per unit) of alcohol consumption in the week prior to follow-up, and confidence in medications management. Trial procedures were assessed by recruitment, attrition, and follow-up rates. RESULTS:260 patients were approached by CPs to take part in the trial, 68% (n?=?178) were assessed for eligibility and 30% (n?=?54) of these patients were eligible. Almost all eligible patients (n?=?51; 94%) consented to participate, of whom 92% (n?=?47) were followed-up at 2?months; alcohol consumption was lower in the intervention arm and confidence in medication management reduced slightly for both groups. Exploration of recall issues at follow-up showed a high level of agreement between a two-item quantity/frequency measure and 7-day guided recall of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS:The pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of implementing the MAC in community pharmacy and trial recruitment and data collection procedures. However, decommissioning of MURs means that it is not possible to conduct a definitive trial of the intervention in this service. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN57447996.

Project description:IntroductionAdherence to medicines in osteoporosis is poor, with estimated 1 year persistence rates between 16% and 60%. Poor adherence is complex, relating to combinations of fear of side effects, beliefs about medication being unnecessary, doubts about effectiveness and the burden of medication management. This is compounded by an absence of monitoring, as many patients are effectively discharged from ongoing care following the initial prescription. Clinical pharmacists in general practice are a relatively new workforce in the UK NHS; this is an unexplored professional group that could provide person-centred, adherence-focused interventions in an osteoporosis context.A model consultation intervention to be delivered by clinical pharmacists in general practice for patients already prescribed fracture prevention medications will be developed using existing evidence and theory and empirical qualitative work outlined in this protocol.Methods and analysisWe will investigate the current practice and barriers and facilitators to a clinical pharmacist-led osteoporosis intervention, including exploring training needs, through focus groups with people living with osteoporosis, pharmacists, general practitioners, osteoporosis specialists and service designers/commissioners. Framework analysis will identify and prioritise salient themes, followed by mapping codes to the theoretical domains framework and normalisation process theory to understand integration and implementation issues.We will further develop the content and model of care for the new consultation intervention through co-design workshops with stakeholder and patient and public involvement and engagement group members. The intervention in practice will be refined in a sequential process with workshops and in-practice testing with people prescribed fracture prevention medication, pharmacists and the multidisciplinary team.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from NHS North West-Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (Ref 23/NW/0199). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through a range of national bodies/stakeholders. Impact and implementation plans will accelerate this research towards a future clinical trial to determine cost and clinical effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care is integral to high-quality health service provision, though concepts vary and the literature is complex. Validated instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills, and behaviours within consultations, are needed for many reasons, including in training programmes. We aimed to provide a high-level synthesis of what was expected to be a large and diverse literature through a systematic review of existing reviews of validation studies a of instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills and behaviours in consultations. The objectives were to undertake a critical appraisal of these reviews, and to summarise the available validated instruments and the evidence underpinning them.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted in September 2020. Systematic reviews of validation studies of instruments measuring individual practitioner person-centred consultation skills or behaviours which report measurement properties were included. Review quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Details of the reviews, the included validation studies, and the instruments themselves are tabulated, including psychometric data, and a narrative overview of the reviews is provided.ResultsFour reviews were eligible for inclusion. These used different conceptualisations of person-centredness and targeted distinct, sometimes mutually exclusive, practitioners and settings. The four reviews included 68 unique validation studies examining 42 instruments, but with very few overlaps. The critical appraisal shows there is a need for improvements in the design of reviews in this area. The instruments included within these reviews have not been subject to extensive validation study.DiscussionThere are many instruments available which measure person-centred skills in healthcare practitioners and this study offers a guide to what is available to researchers and research users. The most relevant and promising instruments that have already been developed, or items within them, should be further studied rigorously. Validation study of existing material is needed, not the development of new measures.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the available information on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred and current handover practices between emergency care practitioners (ECPs) and healthcare professionals in emergency departments (EDs). Collating existing clinical practice guidelines may improve handover practices.Eligibility criteriaClinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices between ECPs and healthcare professionals in EDs. ECPs transporting and handing patients over to healthcare professionals in EDs. Healthcare professionals including doctors and nurses working in EDs, who are involved in handovers with ECPs. Studies conducted in EDs, emergency rooms or emergency centres in any geographical area. No language or time restrictions were applied. The search included published and unpublished studies, opinion papers as well as primary sources, and evidence synthesis. All qualitative and quantitative research designs were included.Sources of evidenceThe literature on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices was reviewed. Three electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Scopus from inception to May 2023 with no time limits set for the inclusion of published literature in the review. Six guideline organisations were also searched.Charting methodsA data extraction tool was developed, pilot-tested and used to extract data from the included studies.Results19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Various mnemonics exist for handover practices. Where mnemonics are not used, participants have identified important information that should be included during handover practices. We did not find any clinical practice guidelines or information on person-centred handover practices in any of the reviewed articles.ConclusionsCurrently, there is no gold standard for person-centred handover practices, which has led to various practices being implemented. Currently, there is a paucity of literature on person-centred handover practices. Most articles expressed a need for standardised handover practices; however, not all aspects of handover practices can be standardised and should be kept patient and context-specific.Trial and protocol registrationThis scoping review protocol was registered on Figshare (10.6084/m9 /m9.figshare.21731528).

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as the preferred model of dementia care in all settings. The EPCentCare study showed that an adapted PCC approach was difficult to implement and had no effect on prescription of antipsychotics in nursing home residents in Germany. This paper reports the qualitative process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers of the implementation of PCC in German nursing homes from the perspective of participating practice development champions.MethodsFive individual and 14 group interviews were conducted with 66 participants (staff and managers) from 18 nursing homes. The analysis was based on inductive coding to identify factors influencing the PCC implementation process. Identified factors were systematised and structured by mapping them to the four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework that explains implementation processes.ResultsFacilitating implementation factors included among others broadening of the care perspective (coherence), tolerance development within the care team regarding challenging behaviour (cognitive participation), testing new approaches to solutions as a multi-professional team (collective action), and perception of effects of PCC measures (reflexive monitoring). Among the facilitating factors reported in all the NPT constructs, thus affecting the entire implementation process, were the involvement of relatives, multi-professional teamwork and effective collaboration with physicians. Barriers implied uncertainties about the implementation and expectation of a higher workload (coherence), concerns about the feasibility of PCC implementation in terms of human resources (cognitive participation), lack of a person-centred attitude by colleagues or the institution (collective action), and doubts about the effects of PCC (reflexive monitoring). Barriers influencing the entire implementation process comprised insufficient time resources, lack of support, lack of involvement of the multi-professional team, and difficulties regarding communication with the attending physicians.ConclusionsThe findings provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of facilitators and barriers structured along the implementation process. Thus, our findings may assist both researchers and clinicians to develop and reflect more efficiently on PCC implementation processes in nursing homes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295462 ; November 20, 2014.

Dataset Information

Using qualitative process evaluation in the development of a complex intervention to advance person-centred practice by pharmacists: The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC).

Publications

Using qualitative process evaluation in the development of a complex intervention to advance person-centred practice by pharmacists: The Medicines and Alcohol Consultation (MAC).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets