Schmidt-Mende K, Hasselström J, Wettermark B, Andersen M, Bastholm-Rahmner P
a Academic primary health care centre, Stockholm County Council and Division of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Neurobiology , Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute , Huddinge , Sweden.
b Public Healthcare Services Committee, Stockholm County Council , Stockholm , Sweden.
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018 Sep;36(3):329-341. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2018.1487458. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
The aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.
This qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate medicines, and stimulated interprofessional dialogue in relation to medication reviews. The purpose of the diaries was to document and structure the pedagogical process of academic detailing and contained quotes from 194 GP and 113 nurse participants in the sessions, and the pharmacists' reflections. The data was explored using thematic analysis.
Thirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden.
GPs and nurses working in primary care.
Thematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.
Five themes were identified: 1) Complexity in 3 'P': patients, pharmacotherapy, and primary care; 2) What, when, who? Clash between GPs' and nurses' experiences and guidelines; 3) Real-world problems and less-than-ideal solutions; 4) Eureka? Experiences with different steps during a medication review; and 5) Threats to GP autonomy.
GPs and nurses should participate in the construction and release of guidelines in order to increase their usability in clinical practice. Future research should analyse if alternative strategies such as condensed medical reviews and feedback on prescribing are easier to implement in primary care. Key points Complex medication reviews have been introduced on a large scale in Swedish primary care, but knowledge on GPs' and nurses' views on such reviews is lacking. In the context of primary care alternative strategies such as condensed medication reviews and feedback on prescribing may be more applicable than medication reviews according to guidelines. GPs and nurses should make contributions to the development of guidelines on medication reviews in order to increase their usability in clinical practice.
本研究旨在更深入了解基层医疗中的全科医生(GP)和护士在对老年患者进行药物评估工作中的体验。
本定性研究嵌套于一项整群随机试验之中,分析了两位进行学术指导(即在基层医疗中开展教育外展访问)的药剂师所撰写的叙述性和非结构化日记。教育课程围绕潜在不适当用药展开,并促进了与药物评估相关的跨专业对话。日记的目的是记录并梳理学术指导的教学过程,其中包含了194名参与课程的全科医生和113名护士的引述以及药剂师的反思。采用主题分析法对数据进行探究。
瑞典斯德哥尔摩的33家基层医疗诊所。
从事基层医疗工作的全科医生和护士。
药剂师对学术指导的主题描述。
确定了五个主题:1)患者、药物治疗和基层医疗这三个“P”的复杂性;2)什么、何时、何人?全科医生和护士的经验与指南之间的冲突;3)现实世界的问题及不太理想的解决方案;4)有灵感了?药物评估不同步骤中的体验;5)对全科医生自主权的威胁。
全科医生和护士应参与指南的制定与发布,以提高其在临床实践中的实用性。未来研究应分析诸如浓缩药物评估和处方反馈等替代策略在基层医疗中是否更易于实施。要点 复杂的药物评估已在瑞典基层医疗中大规模推行,但缺乏关于全科医生和护士对此类评估看法的知识。在基层医疗背景下,诸如浓缩药物评估和处方反馈等替代策略可能比遵循指南进行的药物评估更适用。全科医生和护士应助力药物评估指南的制定,以提高其在临床实践中的实用性。