Department of Clinical Pharmacy, OLVG, Jan Tooropstraat 164, 1061 AE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Present address: Department of Psychiatry, GGZ in Geest, Haarlem, the Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):902. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05744-y.
In-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients.
Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach.
The need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication.
Primary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.
医院内经常进行药物审查。然而,由于二级保健提供者缺乏对外出就诊史的了解,护理可能会出现间断。此外,为了实施或跟进一些基于药物审查的干预措施,需要初级保健提供者的帮助。这需要二级和初级保健提供者之间的跨专业合作。因此,本定性研究的目的是深入了解初级和二级保健提供者对住院患者药物审查的跨专业合作的看法。
对来自三家医院和社区卫生服务中心的 20 名医疗保健提供者进行了 10 次面对面半结构式访谈和 3 次焦点小组讨论。这些访谈旨在探讨全科医生、社区药剂师、老年病学家和医院药剂师的经验、态度以及对跨专业合作的看法。焦点小组由所有专业团体的代表组成。通过小组讨论,从三个主要问题探讨了跨专业合作:1)医院内药物审查的好处是什么?2)从跨专业合作的角度来看,医院内药物审查的障碍是什么?3)鉴于提到的障碍,应如何设计这种初级保健和二级保健之间的跨专业合作?使用主题内容分析方法对数据进行了分析。
由于医院内药物审查有许多好处,例如减少潜在的可预防再次入院,因此强调了进行医院内药物审查的必要性。初级保健和二级保健之间跨专业合作的障碍可分为三个主要主题:1)定义医院内药物审查(例如,目标不明确),2)执行药物审查(例如,医院环境具有动态性),3)出院后随访(例如,说明不清楚)。护理提供者针对提到的每个障碍都提出了解决方案,例如,通过使用支持性工作人员来克服初级保健和二级保健提供者之间的差距,并就适当的沟通方式达成明确的协议。
初级和二级保健提供者认识到医院内药物审查的重要性以及跨专业合作的必要性。为了建立令人满意的跨专业合作,应满足在各设置中定义医院内药物审查的条件,并让初级和二级保健提供者共同参与实施药物审查和安排其随访。