The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

Earle-Payne, Katie; Forsyth, Paul; Johnson, Chris F.; Harrison, Heather; Robertson, Susan; Weidmann, Anita E.

doi:10.1007/s11096-022-01387-7

The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

Earle-Payne, Katie; Forsyth, Paul; Johnson, Chris F.; Harrison, Heather; Robertson, Susan; Weidmann, Anita E.

Authors

Katie Earle-Payne

Paul Forsyth

Chris F. Johnson

Heather Harrison

Susan Robertson

Anita E. Weidmann

Abstract

Background: General practice in the UK is experiencing a crisis. Greater multidisciplinary working is a potential solution. The new general practice contract in Scotland encourages this and includes a new pharmacotherapy service to be delivered by General Practice Clinical Pharmacists (GPCPs). Consensus is lacking for the standards of practice for delivery of pharmacotherapy medication reviews (which are polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews) as part of this service. Aim: To identify and validate standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease medication (pharmacotherapy level 3) reviews conducted by GPCPs. Method: A two-phased mixed-methods consensus methodology was used. Phase 1: An expert group of GPCPs (n = 4) and clinical pharmacist managers (n = 2) responsible for delivering the pharmacotherapy service used a Modified Nominal Group Technique to generate potential standards. Phase 2: Two-round Delphi survey involving GPCPs with ≥ 1 year of experience of working in general practice (n = 159). Results: The expert group identified 44 potential standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease reviews. Practicing GPCPs indicated during the Delphi phase that the 44 standards were applicable to practice. The standards of practice covered seven main categories: skills, environment, qualifications, qualities and behaviours, knowledge, process and experience. Conclusion: Practicing GPCPs indicated that the standards identified by the expert group are acceptable and valid for current practice and the delivery of polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews. The application of these standards to practice may help GPCPs and general practices to ensure equitable delivery of patient care.

Citation

EARLE-PAYNE, K., FORSYTH, P., JOHNSON, C.F., HARRISON, H., ROBERTSON, S. and WEIDMANN, A.E. 2022. The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study. International journal of clinical pharmacy [online], 44(3), pages 663-672. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01387-7

Journal Article Type	Article
Acceptance Date	Feb 15, 2022
Online Publication Date	Mar 23, 2022
Publication Date	Jun 30, 2022
Deposit Date	Apr 4, 2022
Publicly Available Date	Apr 4, 2022
Journal	International journal of clinical pharmacy
Print ISSN	2210-7703
Electronic ISSN	2210-7711
Publisher	Springer
Peer Reviewed	Peer Reviewed
Volume	44
Issue	3
Pages	663-672
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-022-01387-7
Keywords	Chronic disease medication reviews; Pharmacy practice; Polypharmacy reviews; Primary care; Standards of practice
Public URL	https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1615390
Additional Information	The accompanying file with this output contains supplementary material at the end of the main text.

Files

EARLE-PAYNE 2022 The standards of practice (1.5 Mb)
PDF

Publisher Licence URL
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Copyright Statement
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/llicenses/by/4.0/.