To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This developmental study tested the feasibility of training pharmacy staff on the psychologically informed environments (PIE) approach to improve the delivery of care.
Background:
Community pharmacies provide key services to people who use drugs (PWUD) through needle exchange services, medication-assisted treatment and naloxone distribution. PWUD often have trauma backgrounds, and an approach that has been demonstrated to work well in the homeless sector is PIEs.
Methods:
Bespoke training was provided by clinical psychologists and assessed by questionnaire. Staff interviews explored changes made following PIE training to adapt the delivery of care. Changes in attitude of staff following training were assessed by questionnaire. Peer researchers interviewed patient/client on observed changes and experiences in participating pharmacies. Staff interviews were conducted six months after training to determine what changes, if any, staff had implemented. Normalisation process theory (NPT) provided a framework for assessing change.
Findings:
Three pharmacies (16 staff) participated. Training evaluation was positive; all participants rated training structure and delivery as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’. There was no statistically significant change in attitudes. COVID-19 lockdowns restricted follow-up data collection. Staff interviews revealed training had encouraged staff to reflect on their practice and communication and consider potentially discriminatory practice. PIE informed communication skills were applied to manage COVID-19 changes. Staff across pharmacies noted mental health challenges for patients. Five patients were interviewed but COVID-19 delays in data collection meant changes in delivery of care were difficult to recall. However, they did reflect on interactions with pharmacy staff generally. Across staff and patient interviews, there was possible conflation of practice changes due to COVID-19 and the training. However, the study found that training pharmacy teams in PIE was feasible, well received, and further development is recommended. There was evidence of the four NPT domains to support change (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring).
International guidelines on diabetes control strongly encourage the setting-up of therapeutic educational programs (TEP). However, more than half of the patients fail to control their diabetes a few months post-TEP because of a lack of regular follow-up by medical professionals. The DIAB-CH is a TEP associated with the follow-up of diabetic patients by the community pharmacist.
Aim:
To compare the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) in diabetic patients of Control (neither TEP-H nor community pharmacist intervention), TEP-H (TEP in hospital only) and DIAB-CH (TEP-H plus community pharmacist follow-up) groups.
Methods:
A comparative cohort study design was applied. Patients included in the TEP-H from July 2017 to December 2017 were enrolled in the DIAB-CH group. The TEP-H session was conducted by a multidisciplinary team composed of two diabetologists, two dieticians and seven nurses. The HbA1c level and the BMI (when over 30 kg/m2 at M0) of patients in Control (n = 20), TEP-H (n = 20) and DIAB-CH (n = 20) groups were collected at M0, M0 + 6 and M0 + 12 months. First, HbA1c and BMI were compared between M0, M6 and M12 in the three groups with the Friedman test, followed by the Benjamini-Hochberg post-test. Secondly, the HbA1c and BMI of the three groups were compared at M0, M6 and M12 using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Findings:
While no difference in HbA1c was measured between M0, M6 and M12 in the Control group, Hb1Ac was significantly reduced in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups between M0 and M6 (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0034, respectively), and between M0 and M12 only in the DIAB-CH group (P = 0.0027). In addition, a significant decrease in the difference between the measured HbA1c and the target assigned by diabetologists was observed between M0 and M6 in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0044, respectively) but only for the patients of the DIAB-CH group between M0 and M12 (P = 0.0044). No significant difference (P > 0.05) in BMI between the groups was observed.
Conclusion:
The long-lasting benefit on glycemic control of multidisciplinary group sessions associated with community pharmacist-led educational interventions on self-care for diabetic patients was demonstrated in the present study. There is thus evidence pointing to the effectiveness of a community/hospital care collaboration of professionals on diabetes control in primary care.
The RESPECT (Randomised Evaluation of Shared Prescribing for the Elderly in the Community, randomised over Time) trial was a multi-centre pragmatic trial of pharmaceutical care in the community, which took place in five areas of East and North Yorkshire.
Objectives
This paper reports a qualitative study designed to explore attitudes of community pharmacists towards the process of ‘pharmaceutical care’ as tested in the trial.
Methods
We recruited 21 pharmacists from the trial into four focus groups, moderated by an independent researcher, and analysed using a thematic qualitative approach.
Results
Four themes emerged from the data: the pharmacist–patient relationship; the pharmacist–general practitioner (GP) relationship; the pharmacists’ continuing professional development; and the role of peer support. Pharmacists welcomed this opportunity for more collaborative working with patients, GPs and peers.
Conclusion
There is evidence of sub-optimal teamwork between community pharmacists and GP prescribers, which could be improved by more joint training and by new extended roles for pharmacists.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.