Barriers to and Enablers of Implementation of High-Value Interventions by Renal Pharmacists: A Qualitative Study Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.
ABSTRACT: Background:Previous studies have shown that patients with chronic kidney disease who are followed by a renal clinical pharmacist have improved clinical outcomes. In 2016, a consensus list of quality indicator drug therapy problems (QI-DTPs) was developed by renal clinical pharmacists to help prioritize which renal patients should receive interventions. Before QI-DTP interventions can be implemented in clinical practice, barriers to and enablers of their use need to be identified, to allow development of strategies to overcome the barriers and apply the enablers. Objective:To identify modifiable barriers to and enablers of implementation of renal QI-DTP interventions by renal clinical pharmacists. Methods:In this exploratory qualitative descriptive study, one-on-one, semistructured, audio-recorded telephone interviews were conducted with renal clinical pharmacists to identify the barriers to and enablers of implementation of renal QI-DTP interventions. The interviews consisted of questions developed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results:Interviews were conducted with 13 renal pharmacists from across Canada. The main barriers to implementation of renal QI-DTP interventions that participants identified were knowledge gaps, prioritization, and nephrologist acceptance. The main enablers identified were training, colleague support, and better patient care. Conclusion:Three barriers to and three enablers of implementation of renal QI-DTP interventions were identified. These barriers and enablers can be used to help with pharmacist education and to optimize the care that pharmacists provide to renal patients.
Project description:Despite overcoming many implementation barriers, pharmacogenomic (PGx) panel-testing is not routine practice in the Netherlands. Therefore, we aim to study pharmacists' perceived enablers and barriers for PGx panel-testing among pharmacists participating in a PGx implementation study. Here, pharmacists identify primary care patients, initiating one of 39 drugs with a Dutch Pharmacogenetic Working Group (DPWG) recommendation and subsequently utilizing the results of a 12 gene PGx panel test to guide dose and drug selection. Pharmacists were invited for a general survey and a semi-structured interview based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework, aiming to identify implementation enablers and barriers, if they had managed at least two patients with actionable PGx results. In total, 15 semi-structured interviews were performed before saturation point was reached. Of these, five barrier themes emerged: (1) unclear procedures, (2) undetermined reimbursement for PGx test and consult, (3) insufficient evidence of clinical utility for PGx panel-testing, (4) infrastructure inefficiencies, and (5) HCP PGx knowledge and awareness; and two enabler themes: (1) pharmacist perceived role in delivering PGx, and (2) believed clinical utility of PGx. Despite a strong belief in the beneficial effects of PGx, pharmacists' barriers remain, an these hinder implementation in primary care.
Project description:Background:In many jurisdictions, the pharmacist's role continues to evolve from drug distribution-based service delivery to expanded scopes of practice, including independent prescribing of medications. Objectives:To assess health authority-based pharmacists' attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about independent prescribing, to determine how independent prescribing may affect their behaviour, and to identify perceived barriers and enablers to incorporating it into their practice. Methods:An anonymous, cross-sectional online survey of 677 health authority-based pharmacists employed by Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services in British Columbia collected information in the following domains: demographic characteristics; attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding pharmacist prescribing; anticipated effect of pharmacist prescribing on behaviour; likelihood of applying for this authority, if granted; and barriers and enablers to applying for prescribing authority and incorporating prescribing into their practice. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. Results:A total of 266 pharmacists (39.3%) responded to the survey. Most respondents agreed that prescribing is important to the profession and relevant to their practice, and that it might enhance job satisfaction. Additionally, respondents agreed that they had the expertise to prescribe. Respondents perceived prescribing as having the potential to positively affect behaviour, including deprescribing, prescribing at time of discharge or transfer, and renewing medications. Enablers to applying for pharmacist prescribing authority included perceived positive impact on patient care and the profession, level of support from management and coworkers, and personal ability. No barriers were identified. About two-thirds of pharmacists indicated they would likely apply for prescribing authority if it were granted through legislation. Pharmacists with a clinical practice or research role were significantly more likely to apply to be a prescriber, whereas those with more than 10 years of experience were less likely to apply. Conclusions:In this study, health authority-based pharmacists held positive attitudes and beliefs about the value and impact of independent prescribing of medications on their practice and the profession. There were no perceived barriers to applying for prescribing authority or to incorporating prescribing into practice.
Project description:Background:Approximately 1 in 5 Canadians with HIV are unaware of their status. In many provinces and especially rural communities, barriers to HIV testing include lack of access, privacy concerns, and stigma. The availability of HIV point-of-care testing (POCT) is limited across Canada. Pharmacists are well positioned to address barriers by offering rapid HIV POCT and facilitating linkage to care. Methods:We will use a type-2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness design to assess a pilot HIV POCT model in one urban and one rural pharmacy in each of two Canadian provinces over 6 months. In this feasibility trial the research aims include developing and assisting pharmacies in implementing the model, evaluating processes/determinants of program implementation, evaluating the model's effects on client outcomes, preferences, and testing satisfaction. Using a community-based research approach, the research team will engage community stakeholders in each province including individuals with lived experience to inform the development of the pharmacy-based HIV testing model and support the research team throughout the study. A multipronged promotion campaign will be used to promote the study and facilitate recruitment. The pharmacy-based testing model will include pre/post-test counseling and linkage to care plans in addition to pharmacist-administered HIV POCT. Pharmacists will complete a comprehensive training program prior to implementing the testing model. Client demographics and satisfaction will be assessed by surveys and interviews. Pharmacists will document time required for testing and participate in a post-study focus group to discuss barriers/enablers. Implementation will be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The process of developing and implementing the model will be described using qualitative data and a logic model. Acceptability and barriers/enablers will be examined qualitatively based on survey responses. A preliminary costing assessment will consider the client, pharmacy, and government perspectives. Discussion:The results of this pilot will inform modifications to the HIV POCT model to optimize effectiveness and increase scalability. The study has national importance, providing valuable information on improving access to HIV testing. Future applications of this research may expand the role of pharmacists in offering POCT for other sexually transmitted/bloodborne infections as tests become available in Canada. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03210701.
Project description:Background:Pharmacists are often marginalised from participating fully in a Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). Pharmacists can contribute in the renal MDT by minimising drug-related problems and optimising therapy. Aim:The study aimed to explore the current role of pharmacists in renal care at a tertiary hospital in South Africa, and to recommend strategies to improve their participation in the renal MDT. Method:An exploratory descriptive qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews. The participants were selected using purposive sampling. The audiotaped interviews were transcribed exactly as spoken and analysed using thematic content analysis. Results:Three themes emerged from the analysis: pharmacist's current scope of practice within the renal MDT, potential future roles of pharmacists, and perceived barriers to participation of pharmacists within the renal MDT. Furthermore, participants provided recommendations to increase pharmacist's participation in the renal MDT: that is standardisation of practice, skills development of both pharmacist and pharmacist assistants and recognition of pharmacist services in the wards. Conclusion:The role of pharmacists at Pietersburg Hospital is the official name of the hospital is confined to stock management and dispensing. Efforts should be made to improve the participation of pharmacists in the MDTs with the intention to standardise the practice of pharmacists in the wards, equip both pharmacists and pharmacist assistants with the necessary skills and recognise pharmacist's services in the wards.
Project description:Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment.Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group.Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation.There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices.
Project description:BACKGROUND:over 50% of older people in hospital are prescribed a pre-admission medicine that is potentially inappropriate; however, deprescribing by geriatricians and pharmacists is limited. This study aimed to characterise geriatricians' and pharmacists' barriers and enablers to deprescribing in hospital. It also intended to develop a framework of intervention components to facilitate implementation of hospital deprescribing. METHODS:fifty-four geriatricians and pharmacists representing four UK hospitals attended eight focus groups. We designed a topic guide to invite discussions about barriers and enablers to deprescribing. After thematic analysis, themes were mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF), enabling prioritisation of domains for behaviour change. We then identified evidence-based intervention components for changing behaviour within prioritised TDF domains. RESULTS:geriatricians and pharmacists described several deprescribing enablers in the hospital setting including alignment with their role and generalist knowledge, and routine patient monitoring. Five prioritised TDF domains represent the key barriers and enabler: patient and caregiver attachment to medication (social influence); perceptions that deprescribing is riskier than continuing to prescribe (beliefs about consequences); pharmacists' working patterns limiting capacity to support deprescribing (environmental context and resources); deprescribing being a low hospital priority (goals) and incentives to deprescribe (reinforcement). Prioritised TDF domains aligned with 44 evidence-based intervention components to address the barriers and enabler to hospital deprescribing. CONCLUSION:the behavioural determinants and their associated intervention components provide a hospital deprescribing implementation framework (hDIF). Intervention components should be selected from the hDIF to provide a theory and evidence-based intervention tailored to hospital contexts.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes activities concerned with safe-guarding antibiotics for the future, reducing drivers for the major global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whereby antibiotics are less effective in preventing and treating infections. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is central to AMS. Whilst previous studies have explored the effectiveness of specific AMS interventions, largely from uni-professional perspectives, our literature search could not find any existing evidence evaluating the processes of implementing an integrated national AMS programme from multi-professional perspectives. METHODS:This study sought to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme, from multi-professional perspectives. Data collection involved in-depth qualitative telephone interviews with 27 implementation lead clinicians from 14/15 Scottish Health Boards and 15 focus groups with doctors, nurses and clinical pharmacists (n?=?72) from five Health Boards, purposively selected for reported prescribing variation. Data was first thematically analysed, barriers and enablers were then categorised, and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as an interpretive lens to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation process. Analysis addressed the NPT questions 'which group of actors have which problems, in which domains, and what sort of problems impact on the normalisation of AMS into everyday hospital practice'. RESULTS:Results indicated that major barriers relate to organisational context and resource availability. AMS had coherence for implementation leads and prescribing doctors; less so for consultants and nurses who may not access training. Conflicting priorities made obtaining buy-in from some consultants difficult; limited role perceptions meant few nurses or clinical pharmacists engaged with AMS. Collective individual and team action to implement AMS could be constrained by lack of medical continuity and hierarchical relationships. Reflexive monitoring based on audit results was limited by the capacity of AMS Leads to provide direct feedback to practitioners. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides original evidence of barriers and enablers to the implementation of a national AMS programme, from multi-professional, multi-organisational perspectives. The use of a robust theoretical framework (NPT) added methodological rigour to the findings. Our results are of international significance to healthcare policy makers and practitioners seeking to strengthen the sustainable implementation of hospital AMS programmes in comparable contexts.
Project description:Background:Despite the widespread use of medication reviews, many older adults are still exposed to the risks of polypharmacy. Objectives:To quantify and describe the drug therapy problems identified and interventions undertaken by pharmacists before and after implementation (on July 1, 2015) of collaborative medication review for high-risk older adult patients (> 80 years of age). Methods:A retrospective single-centre pre-post cohort study was conducted between July 1, 2014, and July 31, 2016, to characterize the impact of collaborative medication reviews-consisting of a thorough medication review by a pharmacist and care conferences with the hospitalist and family physician-on prescribing patterns in an Acute Care for Elders unit. A standardized template was used to conduct medication reviews for the post-implementation group, whereas a chart review was conducted for the pre-implementation group. The primary outcomes were the number of drug therapy problems identified by the clinical pharmacists and the associated interventions by the pharmacists, which were categorized as clinical or compliance interventions. Secondary outcomes included the number of medications at discharge, the rate of hospital readmission within 30 days, and the length of hospital stay. Results:A total of 137 patients were identified for inclusion in either the pre-implementation group (n = 70) or the post-implementation group (n = 67). After implementation of collaborative medication reviews, there were statistically significant increases in the mean number of drug therapy problems identified (p < 0.001), the mean number of interventions undertaken (p = 0.004), and the median length of hospital stay (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in the number of medications at discharge, the proportion of patients taking more than 5 medications at discharge, or readmission within 30 days. Conclusion:At the study institution, implementation of a quality improvement program that included pharmacist-led medication reviews and collaborative care conferences involving community and hospital care providers helped to improve documentation by clinical pharmacists of potential medication-related problems and led to more interventions to optimize patients' medication regimens.
Project description:PURPOSE:There is a lack of knowledge about factors that influence the performance of comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) by multiprofessional teams in hospital practice. This study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients from the healthcare professional perspective. METHODS:Physicians and ward-based pharmacists were recruited from an ongoing trial at four hospitals in Sweden. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 physicians and 7 pharmacists. Interview topics were working processes, resources, competences, medication-related problems, intervention effects and collaboration. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Identified subthemes were categorised as facilitators or barriers and grouped into overarching main themes. RESULTS:In total, 21 facilitators and 25 barriers were identified across all CFIR domains and grouped in 6 main themes: (a) CMRs and follow-up are needed, but not in all patients; (b) there is a general belief in positive effects; (c) lack of resources is an issue, although the performance of CMRs may save time; (d) pharmacists' knowledge and skills are valuable, but they need more clinical competence; (e) compatibility with hospital practice is challenging, and roles and responsibilities are unclear and (f) personal contact at the ward is essential for physician-pharmacist collaboration. CONCLUSION:Multiple facilitators and barriers for performing CMRs and post-discharge follow-up in older hospitalised patients exist. These factors should be addressed in future initiatives with similar interventions by multiprofessional teams to ensure successful implementation and performance in hospital practice.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>Assess the competency of community pharmacists in identifying errors in pediatric prescriptions and to determine how often pharmacists perform interventions known to mitigate the likelihood of error. The study sought to recognize factors that may impact the pharmacist's ability to identify and mediate these errors, and to detect barriers that limit the role of the pharmacist pediatric patient care.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey was distributed through the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy Alumni Network and the Illinois Pharmacists Association email listservs. Pharmacists practicing in a retail setting within the last 5 years were included. Three prescription scenarios for commonly used pediatric medications with corresponding questions were created to assess a pharmacist's ability to identify errors. Demographics pertaining to the pharmacist and the practice site, as well as information about dispensing practices, were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify factors that might impact the pharmacists' ability to identify errors.<h4>Results</h4>One hundred sixty-one respondents began the survey and 138 met inclusion criteria. In 15% to 59% of scenario-based questions, pharmacists did not appropriately identify errors or interventions that would decrease the likelihood of error. Correct identification of doses was associated with total prescription volume in one scenario and with pediatric prescription volume in another scenario. Pharmacists did not consistently label prescriptions for oral liquids in milliliters or dispense oral syringes. Barriers to pharmacist involvement included availability and interest of the caregiver, ability to contact prescriber, and pharmacy staffing.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Community pharmacists did not consistently identify medication errors or use interventions known to mitigate error risk.