Community pharmacist patient care services: A systematic review of approaches used for implementation and evaluation

Abstract

Background Studies have identified the positive impact of community pharmacist patient care services. Identifying the most effective implementation strategies and performing robust research are critical to sustaining evidence‐based patient care in this setting. This systematic review aimed to describe: (1) implementation strategies, and (2) dissemination and implementation (D&I) outcomes used to evaluate the implementation of patient care services in community pharmacies. Methods PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched for articles that were: (1) written in English and published in 1985 or later, (2) described a peer‐reviewed empirical study or practice experience implementing a patient care service in a community pharmacy, and (3) described the strategies used to implement and/or evaluate the implementation of the service. Two investigators reviewed the abstract, and full‐text when necessary, of each article to assess eligibility. Data were extracted from each article by two investigators using a standardized form. Implementation strategies were categorized using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) study terminology. The D&I outcomes were classified using the Proctor and colleagues terminology. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results Two hundred and thirty‐seven articles were included, 223 of which described at least one implementation strategy and 224 described at least one D&I outcome. “Train and educate stakeholders” and “engage consumer” were the most common and “provide interactive assistance” and “adapt and tailor to context” were the least commonly reported implementation strategies. Reach, acceptability, and adoption were the most common and fidelity and sustainability were the least commonly evaluated D&I outcomes. Most studies used quasi‐experimental or observational designs. Conclusions This systematic review used published manuscripts to identify the breadth and depth of implementation and evaluation strategies being utilized in various community pharmacies. Findings suggest opportunities for further research and innovation via collaboration between pharmacists and implementation practitioners and researchers.

<p>Medication Therapy Management: Current Challenges</p>

“…11 More recently, a review identified strategies used by community pharmacies to implement patient care services, including MTM. 12 While Part D MTM delivery has grown to about 65% of plans utilizing community pharmacists through MTM vendor contracts, there continues to be the need to focus on challenges associated with this delivery. 13 Many PDPs are not utilizing community pharmacists to be the primary provider for Part D MTM services.…”

A Student Pharmacist Quality Engagement Team to Support Initial Implementation of Comprehensive Medication Management within Independent Community Pharmacies

“…There is a growing body of literature on CPESN networks and the implementation of medication management services within community pharmacies [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Though there is a growing body of literature on these topics, to our knowledge, formally utilizing students as an implementation team for a CPESN network is a novel approach.…”

Overcoming Past Perceptions and a Profession-Wide Identity Crisis to Reflect Pharmacy’s Future

“…There has since been significant growth in pharmacy services in various specialties, with several studies illustrating the increasing responsibilities pharmacists undertake in different patient care settings and their value as part of the interprofessional team. [17][18][19][20][21] With the increase in post-graduate training opportunities, increased certification offerings, and job descriptions which require or prefer post-graduate education, pharmacists who lack this experience may have amplified impostor feelings when considering career changes. Further, fraudulent feelings may emerge when failing to secure post-graduate training or pursuing job opportunities when one may not fulfill all the stated job experience requirements.…”