26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Building capacity in primary care: the implementation of a novel ‘Pharmacy First’ scheme for the management of UTI, impetigo and COPD exacerbation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          This service aimed to improve patient access to treatment for urinary tract infections (UTI), impetigo and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and relieve pressure on general practice and out of hours services.

          Background

          In 2016, a service (Pharmacy First) was introduced in Forth Valley for the management of UTI, impetigo and exacerbation of COPD using patient group directions in community pharmacies. Trained pharmacists supplied a limited range of prescription medicines. Pathways for GP referral were defined. After 5 months of implementation, the service was evaluated.

          Methods

          A quantitative evaluation was undertaken. Feedback was sought from patients, GPs, pharmacists and GP reception staff, using structured questionnaires. Pharmacy records were used to assess referrals and pharmacy data summarised the number and type of consultations. Basic cost data was obtained from the Health Board.

          Findings

          In all, 75 pharmacies (of 76), and all 55 GP practices in the area, participated in the service. Over a 5-month period, 1189 cases were managed, the majority being for UTI (75.4%) followed by impetigo (15.2%), then COPD (9.3%). Of all cases, 77.9% were prescribed medication by the pharmacist, 9.1% were given advice only and 16.7% were referred to the GP. Independent clinical assessment of a random sample of 30 GP referrals considered all to be ‘appropriate’. Feedback was received from 69 pharmacists, 34 GPs, 54 reception staff and 73 patients. Patients were very satisfied with the service, most frequently citing the ‘quick and efficient’ access to treatment, and a ‘professional service’. Two thirds of GPs (67%) and 59% of reception staff found the service useful, mainly because it reduced pressure on GP appointments. A further cost benefit evaluation would allow objective assessment of the value of this service.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmacist prescribing: A scoping review about the views and experiences of patients and the public.

          Policy-makers and health professionals' views about pharmacist prescribing have been well studied, but less is known about the views of the public and patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survey of patients' experiences and perceptions of care provided by nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers in primary care

            In the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists who have undertaken additional post-registration training can prescribe medicines for any medical condition within their competence (non-medical prescribers, NMPs), but little is known about patients' experiences and perceptions of this service.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Valuing the extended role of prescribing pharmacist in general practice: results from a discrete choice experiment.

              To quantify patients' preferences for new pharmacist independent prescribing services in general practice for managing common existing long-term conditions compared with usual medical prescribing. A discrete choice experiment cross-sectional survey was conducted in five general practices in England (October-November 2009). Four service attributes reported on the length of consultation and aspects of patient-professional interaction. A choice between three alternatives-novel pharmacist independent prescribing service ("prescribing pharmacist"), "own (family) doctor" service, and "available (family) doctor" service-was presented. Alternative regression models were compared according to their goodness of fit, and the preferred one was used to inform policy analysis. A total of 451 patients completed questionnaires. Respondents preferred a "pharmacist" or "own doctor" compared with "available doctor," with a larger value given to own doctor. All attributes on patient-professional interaction were important in choosing how to manage diagnosed hypertension, while the "length of consultation" (P = 0.42) did not have any impact. The impact of introducing a pharmacist prescribing service into a general practice setting was estimated from these findings. Patients' preferences suggested that about 16% of consultations with a patient's own doctor can be switched to a prescribing pharmacist instead. Although there is a stronger preference for seeing own doctor, alternative combinations of attribute levels can be used to compensate and reconfigure a more preferred prescribing pharmacist service. The pharmacist service is valued by patients as an alternative to doctor prescribing in primary care and therefore represents an acceptable form of service delivery when informing policy. Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                applab
                Primary Health Care Research & Development
                Prim Health Care Res Dev
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1463-4236
                1477-1128
                January 24 2018
                : 1-11
                Article
                10.1017/S1463423617000925
                6692826
                29362007
                fa87132c-4e4c-49e5-9940-e17ae9f1331d
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article