Clinical medication reviews in collaboration with general practitioners can have a positive effect on the Medication Appropriateness Index. However, pharmacist withdrawal from the study suggests that community pharmacy may not be an appropriate environment from which to expand clinical medication reviews in primary care.

No abstract

No abstract

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test is a useful screen for detecting harmful and hazardous drinking in the elderly while the CAGE is valuable when screening for dependence. In the future, the Alcohol-Related Problems Survey, a computer-based screen, may prove to be superior if practical implementation problems can be overcome.

INTRODUCTION: Delivery of current health care services focuses on interdisciplinary teams and greater involvement of health care providers such as nurses and pharmacists. This requires a change in role perception and acceptance, usually with some resistance to changes. There are few studies investigating the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) towards community pharmacists increasing their participation in roles such as clinical medication reviews. There is an expectation that these roles may be perceived as crossing a clinical boundary between the work of the GP and that of a pharmacist. METHODS: Thirty-eight GPs who participated in the General Practitioner–Pharmacists Collaboration (GPPC) study in New Zealand were interviewed at the study conclusion. The GPPC study investigated outcomes of a community pharmacist undertaking a clinical medication review in collaboration with a GP, and potential barriers. The GPs were exposed to one of 20 study pharmacists. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim then analysed using a general inductive thematic approach. FINDINGS: The GP balanced two themes, patient outcomes and resource utilisation, which determined the over-arching theme, value. This concept was a continuum, depending on the balance. Factors influencing the theme of patient outcomes included the clinical versus theoretical nature of the pharmacist recommendations. Factors influencing resource utilisation for general practice were primarily time and funding. CONCLUSION: GPs attributed different values to community pharmacists undertaking clinical medication reviews, but this value usually balanced the quality and usefulness of the pharmacist’s recommendations with the efficiency of the system in terms of workload and funding. KEYWORDS: Family physicians; community pharmacy services; drug utilization review; primary healthcare; health plan implementation; qualitative research; interprofessional relations

Translational research projects based in England, New Zealand and Catalonia are described. In combination they provide real world evidence in support of the evolving discourse on translating the evidence on screening and brief intervention for problem use of alcohol so that it is acceptable and fit for routine practice. Acceptance and uptake was enhanced by encouraging primary health clinicians to use evidence-based screening and brief intervention processes which fit with the context in which they work and which build on the skills they already have and use in practice. Emerging general principles included: tailoring procedures to fit with local circumstances; breaking the process down into clinically acceptable steps and negotiating where there is flexibility. Key issues explored in each case study included how 'screening' is best conducted, what is a brief intervention best suited to which provider and which providers should run the process.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in delivery of health care services has led to pressure for community pharmacists to extend their traditional role and become more involved with patient-focussed services such as medication reviews, in collaboration with general practitioners (GPs). This has not been generally implemented into routine practice, and many barriers have been suggested that inhibit community pharmacists extending their role. These have often focussed on physical or functional barriers. This study explores possible attitudinal factors that prevent increased participation of community pharmacists in medication reviews undertaken in collaboration with GPs. METHODS: Twenty community pharmacist participants who participated in the General Practitioner– Pharmacist Collaboration (GPPC) study were interviewed. The GPPC study investigated the outcomes of community pharmacists undertaking a clinical medication review in collaboration with GPs, and the potential barriers. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using a general inductive thematic approach. FINDINGS: Emerging themes were that community pharmacists perceived that they were not mandated to undertake this role, it was not a legitimate role, particularly from the business perceptive, and pharmacists were concerned that they lacked the skills and confidence to provide this level of input. CONCLUSION: While there is concern that community pharmacists’ skills are underutilised, there are probable attitudinal barriers inhibiting pharmacists from increasing their role in clinical medication reviews. Perceived legitimacy of the service was a dominant theme, which appeared to be related to issues in the business model. Further investigation should consider the use of a clinical pharmacist working within a general practice independent of a community pharmacy. KEYWORDS: Community pharmacy services; drug utilization review; primary healthcare; health plan implementation

GPs perform poorly in assessing their specific learning needs. Their behaviour change is likely to be incremental. Therefore multi-faceted interventions and reinforcement from different sources are likely to be most effective in changing clinical practice. Understanding this is important for CME providers, GP Colleges and funders. Narrow, credit-based approaches to CME may discourage time-strapped GPs obtaining motivation to change from exposure to a wide variety of CME sources.