ArticlePDF Available

Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of Home Medicines Review for Indigenous Australians

Authors:
  • University Centre for Rural Health

Abstract and Figures

Background: Home Medicines Reviews could improve the quality use of medicines and medicines adherence among Aboriginal people. Despite high level of chronic disease very few Home Medicines Review are currently being conducted for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Objective: The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators from the pharmacists' perspective for the provision of Home Medicines Review to Aboriginal people attending Aboriginal Health Services. Setting: A cross sectional survey was used to gather demographic, qualitative and quantitative data from 945 Australian pharmacists accredited to undertake Home Medicines Review. Method: The survey consisted of 39 items which included both closed, open ended and Likert scale questions. Data was extracted from the online survey tool and analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the quantitative data while qualitative data was thematically analysed and coded for emergent themes. Main outcome measure: Number of Home Medicines Review conducted for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Results: A total of 187 accredited pharmacists responded to the survey. They reported that barriers to Home Medicines Review to Aboriginal patients may include lack of understanding of cultural issues by pharmacists; lack of awareness of Home Medicines Review program by Aboriginal Health Service staff; difficulties in implementation of Home Medicine Review processes; burdensome program rules; the lack of patient-pharmacist relationship, and the lack of pharmacist-Aboriginal Health Service relationship. Conclusion: Changes to the medication review processes and rules are needed to improve the accessibility of the Home Medicine Review program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Improved relationships between pharmacists and Aboriginal health service staff, would increase the likelihood of more Home Medicines Reviews being conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
International Journal of Clinical
Pharmacy
International Journal of Clinical
Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Care
ISSN 2210-7703
Int J Clin Pharm
DOI 10.1007/s11096-014-0030-y
Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of
Home Medicines Review for Indigenous
Australians
Lindy Swain, Claire Griffits, Lisa Pont &
Lesley Barclay
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Koninklijke
Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering
der Pharmacie. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Attitudes of pharmacists to provision of Home Medicines
Review for Indigenous Australians
Lindy Swain Claire Griffits Lisa Pont
Lesley Barclay
Received: 27 March 2014 / Accepted: 5 October 2014
Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2014
Abstract Background Home Medicines Reviews could
improve the quality use of medicines and medicines
adherence among Aboriginal people. Despite high level
of chronic disease very few Home Medicines Review are
currently being conducted for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people. Objective The aim of this research
was to explore the barriers and facilitators from the
pharmacists’ perspective for the provision of Home
Medicines Review to Aboriginal people attending
Aboriginal Health Services. Setting A cross sectional
survey was used to gather demographic, qualitative and
quantitative data from 945 Australian pharmacists
accredited to undertake Home Medicines Review.
Method The survey consisted of 39 items which included
both closed, open ended and Likert scale questions. Data
was extracted from the online survey tool and analysed.
Descriptive statistics were used to explore the quantita-
tive data while qualitative data was thematically analysed
and coded for emergent themes. Main outcome measure
Number of Home Medicines Review conducted for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Results A
total of 187 accredited pharmacists responded to the
survey. They reported that barriers to Home Medicines
Review to Aboriginal patients may include lack of
understanding of cultural issues by pharmacists; lack of
awareness of Home Medicines Review program by
Aboriginal Health Service staff; difficulties in imple-
mentation of Home Medicine Review processes; bur-
densome program rules; the lack of patient–pharmacist
relationship, and the lack of pharmacist–Aboriginal
Health Service relationship. Conclusion Changes to the
medication review processes and rules are needed to
improve the accessibility of the Home Medicine Review
program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Improved relationships between pharmacists and
Aboriginal health service staff, would increase the like-
lihood of more Home Medicines Reviews being con-
ducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
patients.
Keywords Aboriginal Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Aboriginal Health Service Australian Barriers
Home Medicines Review Indigenous Interprofessional
Medication adherence Medicines Medication review
Pharmacist Relationships
Impacts of findings on practice
The access of Aboriginal Australians to home medi-
cation review needs to be improved.
Pharmacists and their staff need assistance and training
on dealing with the Aboriginal health service and
workers.
Government policies should support and encourage
pharmacists to conduct medication reviews for Aborig-
inal and Torres Strait Islander patients.
L. Swain (&)L. Barclay
University Centre for Rural Health, School of Public Health,
University of Sydney, 55-61 Uralba Street, Lismore, NSW 2480,
Australia
e-mail: Lindy.Swain@ucrh.edu.au
C. Griffits
Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW,
Australia
L. Pont
Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Sydney Nursing School,
The University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW, Australia
123
Int J Clin Pharm
DOI 10.1007/s11096-014-0030-y
Author's personal copy
Introduction
The Australian Home Medicine Review (HMR) is a profes-
sional pharmacy service that aims to achieve safe, effective
and appropriate use of medicines and to improve the health
outcomes and knowledge of medicines in participating
patients [1]. Studies show that HMRs can improve medica-
tion suitability, reduce adverse drug events, increase patient
medication knowledge and improve adherence rates [2,3].
The HMR program [1] was introduced in Australia in
2001 by the Commonwealth Government. On a referral
from the GP, an HMR trained and accredited pharmacist
will visit the patient at home, and interview the patient
about their medication and lifestyle. The pharmacist
explains the medications and provides appropriate medi-
cation information to the patient. The pharmacist then
prepares a report of their findings, using information pro-
vided by the patient, medical information provided by the
GP and the patient’s dispensing history from the pharmacy.
The accredited pharmacist reports the findings and their
recommendations to the referring GP. This report forms the
basis of the Medication Management Plan which the GP
may implement with the patient on their next visit. The GP
and pharmacist claim payment from Medicare Australia.
Indigenous Australians have poorer health, higher rates
of chronic disease and lower average life expectancy than
non-Indigenous Australians [4]. Despite a higher burden of
acute infections and chronic diseases, under-use of medi-
cines is evident in Australian Aboriginal populations [5].
Poor control of chronic disease states and subsequent
higher hospital admissions, morbidity and mortality may be
directly attributable to poor medicine management in
Indigenous communities [6].
Qualitative, interview based studies have explored per-
spectives of Aboriginal patients and Aboriginal Health
Workers (AHW) as to why medications are underutilised
by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They have
identified lack of knowledge and understanding about
medicines and ineffective engagement with health profes-
sionals as the two biggest barriers to appropriate medica-
tion use [711].
Complex medicine regimens result in some Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander patients finding medicines con-
fusing and difficult to manage. Greater understanding and
empowerment about medicine choices seem to be likely to
improve medicine adherence [10]. Pharmacists through
cognitive pharmacy services, such as Home Medicines
Review, have an opportunity to build relationships,
increase patients’ knowledge about their medicines, and
assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with
medication understanding and treatment choices [10].
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients have
identified some of the reasons why the HMR program is
underutilised by Aboriginal people. These include the need
for a GP to write HMR referrals, lack of relationship with
pharmacist, the inappropriateness of a pharmacist visiting
an Aboriginal patient’s home and lack of understanding of
benefits of the HMR program [12,13].
This study explored pharmacists’ attitudes to the deliv-
ery of HMRs to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people and contributed to knowledge of the processes and
supports needed to enable increased HMR delivery to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Aim
The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and
facilitators, from pharmacists’ perspectives, for the provi-
sion of HMRs and other pharmacy services to Aboriginal
people, attending the Aboriginal Health Service (AHS).
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted from The University of
Sydney, Human Research Ethics Committee (approval
number: 11504).
Methods
Data collection
A cross sectional survey was used to gather demographic,
qualitative and quantitative data on the barriers and facil-
itators to the provision of professional pharmacy services
and HMRs to Indigenous Australians. A literature review
and results from preliminary qualitative studies [10,13]
were used to guide the survey design.
The survey was sent to pharmacists accredited to
undertake HMRs in September 2012. At that time email
contact details were listed for 983 HMR accredited phar-
macists across Australia on the online database of the
accredited pharmacists’ credentialing body, the Australian
Association of Consultant Pharmacists [14]. The researcher
successfully contacted 945 of those listed online, with the
other 38 having incorrect email addresses. Thus, the
majority of accredited pharmacists listed were invited to
participate in the study. They were each emailed an invi-
tation to participate in the study, containing a hyperlink to
an online survey.
The survey consisted of 39 items which included both
closed, open ended and Likert scale questions. Survey
questions explored types of services provided by respon-
dents to Aboriginal Health Services (AHSs), pharmacist
attitudes to working with AHSs, and the barriers and
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
facilitators impacting on the provision of HMRs to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The respon-
dents were also asked a range of general demographic
questions. The survey was piloted on eight accredited
pharmacists, working in community pharmacy, hospital
pharmacy and academia. As a result of the pilot the
question order was changed slightly to make question
progression more relevant and the wording of one question
was altered to clarify meaning. The results of the pilot were
included in the analysis.
Interactions and relationships between pharmacists and
AHSs were explored in this study as AHSs have been
identified as playing a key facilitating role in the successful
organisation and implementation of HMRs for Aboriginal
people [13].
Data analysis
Data was extracted from the online survey tool (Survey
Monkey) and analysed using Excel 2007. Descriptive sta-
tistics were used to explore the quantitative data while
qualitative data was thematically analysed and coded for
emergent themes.
Results
This study explored the pharmacist perspective of the
provision of HMRs to Aboriginal Australians to inform
better understanding of the underutilisation of HMRs and
to gain insight into strategies for increasing HMR
provision.
Participants
Of the eligible participants, 187 pharmacists responded to
the survey, representing a response rate of 19.7 %. Not all
respondents answered all questions. Only 88 respondents
(n =88/945, 9.3 %) answered the specific questions
around working with AHS staff and conducting HMRs for
Aboriginal patients. This appears to reflect the small
sample of pharmacists who are engaged with delivering
services to AHSs.
Approximately 23 % of Australia’s pharmacists reside
and work in non-urban areas, mainly in rural areas and
their regional towns. The number of pharmacists decreases
with increasing rurality and only 1 % of Australia’s phar-
macists work in areas classified as remote [15]. Over 50 %
of the survey participants were from rural areas and
regional towns, 4 % identifying their workplace as remote,
and approximately 40 % from urban areas. The higher
level of rural than urban responses may reflect the higher
percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait patients in rural
and remote areas, and thus a greater interest in completion
of this survey by pharmacists in those areas.
Over 40 % of respondents were community pharmacists
and 46.7 % identified themselves as consultant pharma-
cists, thus implying that their primary occupation was to
conduct medication reviews.
Most of the respondents regularly conducted HMRs,
with over half conducting over five HMRs per month and
about a third conducting more than ten HMRs per month.
However only a quarter of respondents had conducted more
than five HMRs for Aboriginal patients in the last 3 years
and about half of respondents had not conducted any
HMRs for Aboriginal people in the last 3 years. Demo-
graphics and HMR activity of respondents is summarised
in Table 1.
Pharmacist engagement with Aboriginal Health
Services
More than half of the respondents (59.1 %, n =97/164)
indicated they worked within 30 km of an Aboriginal
Health Service . However, close to one-third of respondents
(28.7 %, n =47/164) did not know how far they were
from their local AHS. This may be indicative of limited
interaction with their local AHS.
Despite the close geographical proximity to AHSs, most
respondents and their staff (72.6 %, n =119/164) had not
Table 1 Demographic and HMR profile of respondents
Demographic Options % of respondents
Location Remote 3.7 (n =7/187)
Rural 20.3 (n =38/187)
Regional 34.8 (n =65/187)
Urban 41.2 (n =77/187)
Primary role Community pharmacy
owner
15.5 (n =29/187)
Pharmacist in charge 11.8 (n =22/187)
Community Pharmacist 12.3 (n =23/187)
Hospital Pharmacist 8.0 (n =15/187)
Consultant Pharmacist 46.0 (n =86/187)
Other 6.4 (n =12/187)
HMRs per month 0 6.7 (n =11/164)
1–4 35.4 (n =58/164)
5–10 26.2 (n =43/164)
[10 31.7 (n =52/164)
HMRs over last
3 years
For Indigenous
Australians
0 47.6 (n =78/164)
1–4 27.4 (n =45/164)
5–10 11.0 (n =18/164)
11–20 6.7 (n =11/164)
[20 7.3 (n =12/164)
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
visited an AHS in the previous 12 months and 55.5 %
(n =91/164) had had no contact with the AHS. For the
45 % of the respondents who had had a contact with the
AHS, the contact was most commonly by phone (47.7 %,
n=42/88). The main purpose for contact was medication
supply and dispensing queries. Their most common contact
was with the prescribing GP. Only 17 % (n =15/88) of
respondents indicated that their engagement with the AHS
related to patient medication counselling and 63 %
(n =55/88) of respondents identified that they had not
provided any Quality Use of Medicine Services to AHSs.
Thirty-two percent of respondents (n =28/88) provided
Dose Administration Aids (DAAs, often called Webster
packs) to their local AHS.
The vast majority of respondents (89.6 %, n =147/164)
indicated that they would like to have provided more ser-
vices to their local AHS. They indicated that they would
like to provide services such as HMRs (72.5 %, n =119/
164), AMS staff education (49.4 %, n =81/164) and
health promotion assistance (54.0 %, n =88/164).
The two largest barriers to working with an AHS were
identified as lack of relationship with the AHS (57.9 %,
n=95/164) and lack of financial viability for delivering
clinical services to the AHS (61.6 %, n =101/164).
Home Medicine Reviews for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people
Perceived Benefits
Respondents expressed high to very high agreement that an
HMR would result in an increased understanding of their
illness (72.7 %, n =64/88) and an increased understand-
ing of how to take medicines (84.1 %, n =74/88). Simi-
larly respondents agreed that an HMR would increase the
understanding of potential medication side effects (71.2 %,
n=62/88), improve medication adherence (69.3 %,
n=61/88), improve pharmacist-patient relationships
(77.7 %, n =66/88) and would encourage patients to ask
more questions about their medicines (68.2 %, 60/88).
Perceived Barriers
Lack of GP referrals (74.7 %, n =121/164), lack of
pharmacist time (40.5 %, n =66/164) and low financial
viability (16.6 %, n =27/164) were seen as barriers to
delivery of HMRs to all population groups.
Barriers to delivery of HMRs to Aboriginal patients also
included difficulties in organising HMR interviews
(57.4 %, n =51/88) and lack of understanding of cultural
issues (49.4 %, n =43/88). Over half the respondents
(52.8 %, n =47/88) also had a perception that Aboriginal
patients may not want ‘‘a stranger in their home’’ and
53.4 % (n =47/88) expressed some concern that the lack
of an existing patient-pharmacist relationship could cause a
barrier to the delivery of HMR services to Aboriginal
patients. By far the biggest perceived barrier (79.5 %,
n=70/88) was lack of awareness of the HMR program by
GPs and AHS staff. Barriers to the provision of HMRs for
Aboriginal patients are summarised in Table 2.
Respondents who had conducted an HMR with an
Aboriginal patient identified that the GP was responsible
for organising the majority of the referrals (77.5 %,
n=69/88) while the pharmacist was responsible for
organising the majority of the interviews (74.2 %, n =66/
88). Difficulty organising an HMR referral was rated, by
the majority of respondents to have a high or very high
impact on the provision of HMRs. A few respondents
comments indicated that they felt some GPs did not highly
rate HMRs. ‘‘Prescribers do not see the benefit in a HMR
and may not feel a pharmacist can add any more insight
than themselves’’.
Just over half of the respondents (56.1 %, n =92/164)
identified lack of professional relationships with their local
AHS as the greatest barrier to providing professional
pharmacy services to Indigenous communities. The phar-
macy-AHS relationship was identified by 39.0 % (n =64/
164) of the respondents to highly or very highly impact on
their ability to provide services to the AHS.
Other barriers to HMR delivery to Aboriginal patients
were also suggested by respondents in their answers to the
open-ended qualitative questions. These included, difficulty
Table 2 Respondents’ perceptions of barriers to the provision of
HMRs to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients
Respondent perceptions
(n =164)
Percentage of respondents
Not at
all
Small to
moderate
degree
High to
very
high
degree
Lack of awareness of HMRS by
GPs/AHSs
6.8 38.6 54.5
Organising an HMR referral 15.9 39.8 44.3
Lack of patient interest 14.8 57.9 27.3
Patient not wanting a stranger in
their home
20.5 53.4 26.1
Difficulties in organising
appointments
13.6 62.5 23.8
Liaising with AHW/AHS 31.0 49.4 19.5
Understanding cultural issues 19.5 60.9 19.5
Liaising with patient’s doctor 30.7 47.7 19.3
Effectively communicating with
patient s
28.7 54.0 17.2
Providing feedback to patient 28.7 63.2 8
HMR Home Medicines Review, AMS Aboriginal Medical Service
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
allocating time for HMRs due to current work commitments,
difficulty coordinating pharmacy opening times and visits to
the AHS, excessive amounts of paper work, restrictive
program rules and inconsistent HMR demand.
While some respondents indicated that they felt visiting
Aboriginal patients’ homes was not always culturally
appropriate, most of the HMRs (83 %, n =73/88) that had
been conducted by respondents had been performed in the
home of the patient, and were by appointment (88.6 %,
n=78/88), as per the HMR program regulations. However
a few respondents indicated that as regulations make it very
difficult to conduct HMRs in a venue other than the home
that many patients were opting not to use the service.
By far the main barrier to doing HMRs in this area is
the unwillingness of Aboriginal people to have visi-
tors in their homes. The only viable method of doing
HMRs for Aboriginal people in this community is on
an opportunistic basis in the pharmacy. But this is not
allowed.
The majority of respondents (69.5 %, n =114/164)
indicated that they had never received any form of cultural
awareness training or training relating to Aboriginal health
or engagement with Aboriginal patients. Approximately
half (49.4 %, n =43/88) of respondents felt that their lack
of understanding of cultural issues impacted to a moderate
to high degree on their ability to conduct HMRs for
Aboriginal patients.
Facilitators to HMR
Greater involvement of AHS staff in the HMR process was
seen as a facilitator for HMR delivery to Aboriginal
patients. Although AHWs played no role in close to half of
the HMRs (46.6 %, n =41/88) which had been conducted
with Aboriginal patients study participants expressed their
desire for greater AHW or AHS nurse involvement, stating.
‘‘ It would be great to have the nurse and a health
worker present during interview and involved in
follow-up discussions, especially regarding disease
management and continuity of care.’
When AHWs were involved in HMRs it was to liaise
with pharmacists and patients (38.6 %, n =34/88), to help
organise HMR (22.7 %, n =20/88), to help in the follow
up process (17 %, n =15/88) or to act as an interpreter
(10.2 %, n =9/88).
The majority of respondents (90.8 %, n =79/88)
believed that allowing an AHW or AHS nurse to write
HMR referrals would facilitate more HMRs being per-
formed for Aboriginal patients, especially when GPs were
time poor and where there was high reliance on locum GPs.
Participants commented that.
The GPs want more HMRs done but don’t want to
have to do all the paperwork. It would be great if
AHWs and nurses could write the referrals as they
know which patients would benefit and usually have
more time than the GPs.
Most respondents felt that it was appropriate for AHS
nurses and AHWs to be involved in the referral process as
‘the nurses and AHWs are closer to the patient and are
more likely to identify medicine issues.’
A small number of respondents reflected the opinion
‘working at the AHS would be a great job. I could make a
real difference. It is a pity that there is no funding to
support this.’
Discussion
Although the respondents in this study were HMR
accredited pharmacists who conducted regular HMRs, over
70 % of respondents had conducted fewer than five HMRs
for Aboriginal people in the last 3 years. These findings
endorsed those in earlier government reports which iden-
tified that very few HMRs have been performed for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people [16,17]. In
2013 approximately 107,000 HMRs were conducted across
Australia [18]. However, there are no available statistics on
how many of these were conducted for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people.
More than half of the respondents had no contact with
their AHS and very few had been involved in Aboriginal
patient interaction, yet many of the pharmacists who par-
ticipated in this study wanted to interact with their local
AHS and staff. This reflects similar studies which indicate
that pharmacists are keen to work more closely with
mainstream GP practices and deliver inter-professional
healthcare, yet are unsure as to how to facilitate the process
[19,20]. Studies have found that pharmacists are not
confident in clinical decision making, largely due to per-
sonality type and professional training [2123]. More
investigation is needed to explore whether these factors
influence pharmacists’ ability to engage with other health
professionals and build relationships with other primary
health care organisations.
The respondents expressed an interest in delivering
clinical services to the AHS if they could make the services
financially viable. Respondents expressed the need for a
suite of services for which they could be remunerated or
the need for salaried position within an AHS or GP practice
to enable viability, sustainability and relationship building.
Currently the HMR program is the only clinical service in
Australia for which a pharmacist can claim financial
reimbursement from the Government.
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
Pharmacists received $194.07 (AU) remuneration for an
HMR service (in 2014) [1] but have suggested in this study
and in other evaluations that HMRs are not financially
viable due to the large amount of time required for HMR
administrative costs [16,17]. This lack of financial via-
bility is exacerbated when the pharmacist has to travel
large distances to patients’ homes, especially in rural areas;
when a pharmacist has to apply for a prior approval so that
they can conduct an HMR outside a patient’s home; when a
patient has multiple co-morbidities, multiple health care
providers and complex medication regimens [24].
Discussions between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia
and the Australian Department of Health have commenced
in preparation for negotiation of the Sixth Community
Pharmacy Agreement (6CPA) by July 2015. These 5 year
Community Pharmacy Agreements provide remuneration
and guidelines to around 5,000 community pharmacies for
the dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme subsi-
dised medicines and the provision of pharmacy programs
and services. Revised remuneration levels and program
rules for HMR will be stipulated in 6CPA and it is hoped
that this study may influence policy makers that current
remuneration levels for clinical services are inadequate and
unsustainable. Pharmacy educators, organisations and
policy makers also need to be working with the Australian
Government to develop service delivery models where
pharmacists are remunerated for working in inter-profes-
sional primary health care settings, such as AHSs.
The majority of respondents found the main barrier to
delivery of clinical services, such as HMR to Aboriginal
patients, was their lack of relationship with the AHS,
despite dispensing and supplying DAAs, to the AHS and its
patients. This lack of relationship with the AHS may reflect
the lack of training of pharmacists in Aboriginal health and
cultural awareness. The National Australian Pharmacy
Student Association conducted a survey of students in 2012
which showed that students felt it was important to be
taught about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health
issues yet many pharmacy school curricula include very
little or no content on Aboriginal health or cultural
awareness [25]. Respondents in this study indicated that
they would like more education in issues of Aboriginal
health and cultural awareness.
This study will be used to inform pharmacy schools of the
need for increased cultural awareness training and Aborig-
inal Health education for pharmacy students. As a result of
this study the main author is commencing work with the
Pharmaceutical Society of Australia to develop a guide and a
series of workshops for Australian pharmacists which will
assist them to be culturally responsive practitioners and
assist them to engage with Aboriginal Health Services.
The respondents in this study, similar to other HMR
studies with non-Indigenous Australians [26,27] indicated
that two significant barriers to HMR program uptake were
lack of awareness of the program by health professionals
and lack of GP referrals. Studies have also found that some
GPs often do not value the role of pharmacists in per-
forming medication management review [16,17]. Research
has also suggested that due to time constraints GPs often
find it difficult to fulfil the administrative requirements of
HMR referrals, as the current process is complex [16]. An
Urbis Keys Young evaluation (2005) of the HMR program
found that incomplete or unclear referral forms from the
GPs hindered the HMR process. This evaluation also found
that the majority of accredited pharmacists believed GPs
were unaware of HMRs and were reluctant to collaborate
professionally with pharmacists [17].
In February 2014 a lack of funding for the HMR pro-
gram, under the Government-Pharmacy Guild agreement,
resulted in the number of HMRs a pharmacist being capped
at 20 HMRs per pharmacist per month [1]. This capping of
HMR program funding has negated the ability to promote
HMRs to a wider audience despite the evidence that indi-
cates the improved health outcomes and reduced prevent-
able hospitalisations that result from medication reviews
[2,3,28]. Respondents in this study strongly indicated that
they believed that HMRs could greatly assist Aboriginal
patients to better understand their medicines and health,
and could improve medication adherence.
The views of the pharmacists in this study reflected the
views of Aboriginal patients in a recent study [13]which
indicated that barriers to HMR for Aboriginal patients included
the ‘‘home setting’’, and the complex referral and interview
arrangements. The pharmacist respondents noted the need for a
closer relationship with the AHS and the AHS staff, to ensure
successful implementation of the HMR process. This confirms
previous studies which emphasise the important role the AHS
plays in delivering primary care to Aboriginal people [2931].
Respondents acknowledged that GPs in AHSs are often
overloaded or are transitory, and thus nurses and AHWs are
often the primary contact with patients. Respondents
strongly endorsed greater involvement of AHS nurses and
AHW in the HMR process, from initial referral to follow
up post pharmacist intervention. The vast majority of
pharmacists surveyed suggested allowing AHWs or AHS
nurses to write HMR referrals and play a more key role in
the HMR process to help facilitate good communication
during the HMR interview and to aid in the administration
procedures of the interviews and follow ups [13].
The expanded role for AHS staff and the ability to
conduct an HMR in a setting other than the home, were
also identified as facilitators to increasing the number of
HMRs for Aboriginal by Aboriginal patient participants in
a previous study [13].
This study will be used to advise 6CPA negotiations of
the needs for changes to HMR program rules and suggest
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
new and more appropriate medication review models for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The new
models will suggest that medication reviews for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people be uncapped in number,
allow referrals from nurses, AHWand doctors, and allow
flexibility of location.
The issues of financial viability, lack of GP referrals and
lack of program awareness were consistent with barriers
identified by pharmacists in HMR studies with other pop-
ulation groups. The lack of ability to build relationships
with Aboriginal health Services is a unique finding of this
study and needs further investigation.
Limitations
Some of accredited pharmacists who were not regularly
working with Indigenous patients were reluctant to par-
ticipate in the survey. Several pharmacists contacted the
authors to support the work but believed they could not
contribute to the survey as they did not work with
Aboriginal patients. Consequently there was a limited
sample and the results of this study may underestimate the
barriers to performing HMRs for Aboriginal Australians.
This study does not analyse the views of pharmacists
working with AHSs who are not accredited to perform
HMRs. Non-accredited pharmacists may be providing phar-
macy services to AHSs however their views on the barriers
and the facilitators to providing pharmacy services for
Aboriginal Australians have not been captured in this study.
Conclusion
This study showed that HMR accredited pharmacists are
currently providing very limited clinical pharmacy services
to Aboriginal Australians. Accredited pharmacists were
very keen to provide more services to AHSs. However, need
assistance and training to overcome the barriers which are
inhibiting them working more closely with AHSs and AHS
staff are needed. Pathways and mechanisms to facilitate
increased relationship building between pharmacists and
other health professionals, and with primary care organisa-
tions, such as AHSs, need to be further investigated.
Increased promotion of the HMR program, GP educa-
tion, increased and consistent financial remuneration to
pharmacists, changes to the HMR referral process,
improved relationships between pharmacists and AHS
staff, and increased involvement of AHS staff in the HMR
processes are needed, to increase HMR delivery to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Future government policies need to support and
encourage pharmacists to conduct medication reviews for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank accredited pharmacists
who participated in this survey.
Funding This study was made possible by Sanofi Pamela Nieman
Grant funding from the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia.
Conflicts of interest No conflict of interest exists for any of the
authors.
References
1. Australian Government. Department of Health. Fifth Community
Pharmacy Agreement. Home Medicines Review. http://5cpa.com.
au/programs/medication-management-initiatives/home-medi
cines-review/. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
2. Roughead E, Semple S, Vitry A. Pharmaceutical care services: a
systematic review of published studies, 1990–2003, examining
effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Int J Pharm Pract.
2005;13:53–70.
3. Castelino R, Bajorek B, Chen T. Retrospective evaluation of
home medicines review by pharmacists in older Australian
patients using the medication appropriateness index. Ann Phar-
macother. 2010;44(12):1922–9.
4. Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council. Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework Report.
Australian government: Department of Health and Ageing 2010.
ISBN: 978-1-74241-525-3 Found at: http://www.health.gov.au/
internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/health-oatsih-pubs-
framereport-toc. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
5. Couzos S, Murray R. Health, human rights and the policy pro-
cess. In: Couzos S, Murray R, editors. Aboriginal primary health
care: an evidence-based approach. Melbourne: Oxford University
Press; 2007. p. 29–63. ISBN 9780195551389.
6. Kelaher M, Dunt D, Taylor-Thomson D, O’Donoghue L, Barnes
T, et al. Improving access to medicines among clients of remote
area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Services. Aust
N Z J Public Health. 2006;30(2):177–83.
7. Davidson P, Abbott P, Davison J, DiGiacomo M. Improving
medication uptake in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peo-
ples. Heart Lung Circ. 2010;19(5):372–7.
8. Hamrosi K, Taylor S, Aslani P. Issues with prescribed medica-
tions in Aboriginal communities: Aboriginal health workers’
perspectives. Rural Remote Health. 6(2): 577. (Online) 2006.
http://www.rrh.org.au/articles/subviewnew.asp?ArticleID=557.
Accessed 30 March 2012.
9. Stoneman J, Taylor S. Improving access to medicines in urban,
regional and rural Aboriginal communities–is expansion of Sec-
tion 100 the answer. Rural Remote Health. 7(2): 738. (Online)
2007. www.rrh.org.au. Accessed 30 March 2012.
10. Swain L, Barclay L. They’ve given me that many tablets, I’m
bushed. I don’t know where I’m going. Aust J Rural Health.
2013;21:216–9.
11. McRae M, Taylor S, Swain L, Sheldrake C. Evaluation of a
pharmacist-led, medicines education program for Aboriginal
Health Workers. Rural Remote Health 8(946). (Online) 2008.
www.rrh.org.au. Accessed 30 March 2012.
12. Vaughan F. The challenges of HMR delivery to people in rural
and remote areas. Aust J Pharm. 2003;84:96–7.
13. Swain L, Barclay L. Exploration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Isalnder Perspectives of Home Medicines Review. Submitted to
Rural Remote Health Februrary 2012.
14. AACP. AACP Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacists.
(Online) no date. https://www.aacp.com.au/about/phsearch.html.
Accessed 10 Aug 2012.
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
15. Health Workforce Australia. Health workforce by numbers.Issue 2—
November 2013. http://www.hwa.gov.au/sites/uploads/HWA_Health-
Workforce-by-Numbers_Issue-2_LR.pdf. Accessed 5 August 2014.
16. Campbell Research and Consulting. Home Medicines Review
Program Qualitative Research Final Report. Australian govern-
ment: Department of Health and Ageing, 2008. http://www.
health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/hmr-qualita
tive-research-final-report. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
17. Australia Department of Health, Pharmacy Guild of Australia,
Urbis Keys Young. Evaluation of the Home Medicines Review
Program: Pharmacy Guild of Australia, 2005.
18. Australian Government.The Department of Health. Medication
Management Review Data. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/
main/publishing.nsf/Content/Medication-Management-Review-
Data. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
19. Herrier R, Brownlee M, Hubbard S. Improving health care
delivery through Interprofessional practice. J Am Pharm Assoc.
2004;44:651–8.
20. Rigby D. Collaboration between doctors and pharmacists in the
community. Aust Prescr. 2010;33:191–3.
21. Frankel G, Austin Z. Responsibility and confidence: identifying bar-
riers to advanced pharmacy practice. Can Pharm J. 2012;145(6):
280–4.
22. Rosenthal M, Breault R, Austin Z, Tsuyuki R. Pharmacists’ self-
perception of their professional role: insights into community
pharmacy culture. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2011;51:363–7.
23. Farris KB, Schopfloucher DP. Between intention and behaviour:
an application of community pharmacists’ assessment of phar-
maceutical care. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(1):55–66.
24. Swain L. Are rural and remote HMRs viable? Aust Pharm. 2012;
31(3):184.
25. National Australian Pharmacy Students’ Association.NAPSA
rural and Indigenous affairs committee Indigenous health position
statement. Found at: http://www.napsa.org.au/napsa-advocacy-
and-position-statements/. Accessed 5 Aug 2014.
26. White L, Klinner C, Carter S. Consumer perspectives of the
Australian Home Medicines Review Program: benefits and bar-
riers. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(1):4–16.
27. Carter S, Moles R, White L, Chen T. Patients’ willingness to use
a pharmacist-provided medication management service: the
influence of outcome expectancies and communication efficacy.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012;8(6):487–98.
28. Roughead E, Barratt J, Ramsay E, Pratt N, Ryan P, Peck R, et al.
Collaborative home medicines review delays time to next hos-
pitalization for warfarin associated bleeding in Australian war
veterans. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36:27–32.
29. Lau P, Pyett P, Burchill M, Furler J, Tynan M, Kelaher M, et al.
Factors influencing access to urban general practices and primary
health cae by aboriginal australians—a qualitative study. Int J
Indig Peo. 2012;8(1):66–84.
30. McInman AD. What Aboriginal people think about their access to
health care. Sydney: McInman Research Centre; 2000.
31. Andrews B, Simmons P, Long I, Wilson R. Identifying and
overcoming the barriers to Aboriginal access to general practi-
tioner services in rural New South Wales. Aust J Rural Health.
2002;10(4):196–201.
Int J Clin Pharm
123
Author's personal copy
... The HMR program rules and claim lodgement processes are also restrictive for pharmacists, as described below and as lamented by pharmacists in concurrent research [7]. The program's rules have actually increased rather than decreased under the recent Fifth Government-Community pharmacy agreement [4]. ...
... This study confirmed a number of the barriers to provision of HMR services identified in previous studies by both consumers and stakeholders. These included complexity of program rules, concerns regarding home visits, lack of information about the program, GP workload and GP fears of pharmacists encroaching on their professional space [5,[7][8][9]. It also identified a number of barriers specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. ...
... The lack of relationships of the AHS staff, including the GPs, with any pharmacists, including their local community pharmacists, appeared to be a major barrier to the initiation of HMRs. The lack of relationships with AHSs was also noted by pharmacists themselves in recent research [7]. This supported previous research which suggested that lack of face-to-face interactions and established relationships between GPs and community pharmacists may be significant barriers to collaboration [12]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: The Australian Home Medicines Review (HMR) program consists of a pharmacist reviewing a patient's medicines at his or her home and reporting findings to the patient's general practitioner (GP) to assist optimisation of medicine management. Previous research has shown that the complex HMR program rules impede access to the HMR program by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. This study explores the attitudes and perceptions of health professional employees working within Aboriginal Health Services (AHSs) towards the HMR program. The goal was to identify how the HMR program might better address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Methods: Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals at 11 diverse AHSs. Fourteen Aboriginal Health Workers (AHWs), five nurses, one manager and 11 GPs were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, de-identified and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed for themes that recurred throughout the interviews. Results: This study identified a number of barriers to provision of HMRs specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. These included paternalistic attitudes of health professionals to clients, heightened protection of the GP-client relationship, lack of AHS-pharmacist relationships, need for more culturally responsive pharmacists and the lack of recognition of the AHS's role in implementation of culturally effective HMRs. Changes to the HMR model, which make it more effective and culturally appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, were recommended. Improved relationships between GPs and pharmacists, between pharmacists and AHSs, and between pharmacists and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients were identified as key to increasing HMRs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Conclusions: Aboriginal Health Services are well-placed to be the promoters, organisers, facilitators and implementers of health programs, such as HMR, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. Embedding a pharmacist within an AHS addresses many of the barriers to HMRs. It ensures pharmacists are culturally mentored and that they build strong relationships with health professionals and clients. The HMR program rules need to be changed significantly if medication review is to be an effective tool for improving medication safety and adherence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
... These included financial barriers, cultural differences which may lead to judgements and misunderstandings about the medications themselves, relationships between health professionals and patients, the quality of which can cause disempowerment and or confusion, and complexity of medication regimens. 12,16,[25][26][27][28][29] Data quality and amount of data available were a key theme across the papers. Most of the systematic reviews reported either low quality of data available and or low numbers of studies focusing on this topic. ...
... six papers were based on the five programs available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through government funding: Home Medication Reviews (HMRs), PBS Closing the Gap (CTG) Scripts, the Remote Area Aboriginal Health's S100 program and the QUMAX program.12,16,26,27 These four papers explained the intricacies of each program and the positive effects that they have had for Aboriginal people and their health from the perspective of the authors. ...
Article
Full-text available
Issue addressed: This paper aims to report findings of a scoping review which mapped and summarised available literature regarding Aboriginal peoples' use of Dose Administration Aids (DAAs) for improved medication management. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have higher rates of chronic disease than other Australians. This leads to increased numbers of prescribed medications and complex medication taking regimens. The Australian Government and Pharmacy Bodies provide programs for Aboriginal peoples with chronic conditions, including programs supporting access to DAAs to improve medication adherence. Methods: The search strings used included three key concepts: Indigeneity; DAAs and outcomes. PubMed, Medline via Ovid and the grey literature were searched. Results: After removal of duplicates, 426 papers were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. A further 407 papers were then excluded leaving a total of nineteen papers included in the review. Only three of these papers included all three concepts in the search criteria, and none of these were empirical studies. Conclusion: The lack of studies found in this review support the requirement for empirical research regarding the effects of DAAs on medication taking behaviours of Aboriginal people, and the programs that provide them. SO WHAT?: The Australian Government funds programs that provides access to DAAs as a method of improving medication taking behaviours. But what do we really know about DAAs and if or how they assist in this goal? This review scopes out what is known, in order to direct studies that will answer this question.
... 47 78 Moreover, following locally developed prescribing guidelines that have been specifically developed for patients residing in remote and rural communities is vital, 51 in order to reduce treatment emergent morbidity and mortality. 42 59 Currently, there is limited access to comprehensive medication review services for Aboriginal people 79 and in remote communities. 80 Studies have shown that the involvement of Aboriginal Health Workers and Consultant pharmacists can have a positive impact on appropriate prescribing patterns. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Aboriginal Australians are reported to have a high burden of chronic airway diseases. However, prescribing patterns and related outcomes of airway directed inhaled pharmacotherapy, (short-acting beta agonists (SABA), short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA), long-acting β-agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) among Aboriginal Australian patients with chronic airway disease have been sparsely reported in the past. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, using clinical, spirometry data, chest radiology, primary healthcare (PHC) presentations and hospital admission rates among Aboriginal patients identified to have been prescribed inhaled pharmacotherapy in remote and rural communities referred to the respiratory specialist service in the Top End, Northern Territory of Australia. Results: Of the 372 identified active patients, 346 (93%) had inhaled pharmacotherapy prescribed (64% female, median age 57.7 years). ICS was the most common prescription (72% of the total cohort) and was recorded to be prescribed in 76% of patients with bronchiectasis, and 80% of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fifty-eight percent of patients had a respiratory hospital admission and 57% had a recorded PHC presentation for a respiratory issue during the study period, with a higher rate of hospital admissions among patients prescribed ICS compared with those on SAMA/SABA or LAMA/LABA without ICS (median rate (per person per year) 0.42 vs 0.21 and 0.21 (p=0.004). Regression models demonstrated that presence of COPD or bronchiectasis alongside ICS was associated with significantly increased hospitalisation rates (1.01 admissions/person/year (95% CI 0.15 to 1.87) and 0.71 admissions/person/year (95% CI 0.23 to 1.18) against patients without COPD/bronchiectasis, respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that among Aboriginal patients with chronic airway diseases, ICS is the most common inhaled pharmacotherapy prescribed. Although LAMA/LABA and concurrent ICS use may be appropriate among patients with asthma and COPD, the use of ICS may have detrimental effects among those with underlying bronchiectasis either in isolation or concurrent COPD and bronchiectasis, potentially leading to higher hospital admission rates.
... Ao contrário de outras populações indígenas, como na Austrália, em que existe uma subutilização de medicamentos nas comunidades indígenas, no Brasil, há um consumo elevado de medicamentos alopáticos pelos indígenas, através de prescrição médica 4,5 . Todavia, este consumo não está necessariamente relacionado ao uso adequado dos medicamentos. ...
... 37 More recently, there have been calls for pharmacists to play an integral role within AHS, particularly in the delivery of Home Medication Reviews. 37 Being more closely involved with the AHS would enable pharmacists to attain appropriate education in the cultural sensitivities required to reduce barriers to delivery of such an important service in medication management 38,39 and may provide a catalyst that would potentially be of benefit to such a co-ordinated approach. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Poor medication management may contribute to the increased morbidity and mortality of Aboriginal people in Australia. Yet while there is extensive literature about the perceptions of healthcare providers on this issue, there is limited information on the perceptions of Aboriginal people themselves. Objectives: To investigate the perceptions of a group of Aboriginal people attending a Victorian regional Aboriginal Health Service (AHS) with diagnosed medical conditions requiring medications, of their lifestyle, disease management and medication usage. Methods: Data was collected through one to one in depth interviews using a semi-structured ‘yarning’ process. Twenty patients were invited to participate in the study and were interviewed by Aboriginal Health Workers in a culturally appropriate manner. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Our results show that the majority of participants perceived that changes in lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, and smoking cessation would help improve their health. Most patients reported having been counselled on their medicines, and while the majority reported adherence and acknowledgement of the efficacy of their medicines, there was a lack of clarity regarding long term maintenance on regimens. Finally, while the majority reported taking over the counter products, some did not see the need to inform their doctor about this, or chose not to. Conclusion: Chronic illness was perceived as common in families and community. Patients relied mostly on their health care professionals as sources for their drug information. Patients may have benefited from further counselling in the area of complementary and other over the counter medicines, as well as on the necessity of maintenance of regimes for chronic disease management. Finally, lifestyle changes such as dietary improvements and smoking cessation were identified as areas that may assist in improving health outcomes.
... Data were extracted from nine controlled studies (Table 1), 20-28 34 observational or uncontrolled studies with a focus on MRPs (Table 2), [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and other clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes (Table 3), 10,44-61 11 qualitative (including interviews and focus groups) and nine survey research studies (Table 4). 11,13,[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Methodological quality of studies ...
Article
Background: Pharmacist-led medication review is a collaborative service which aims to identify and resolve medication-related problems. Objective: To critically evaluate published systematic reviews relevant to pharmacist-led medication reviews in community settings. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 1995 to December 2015. Systematic reviews of all study designs and outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Systematic reviews of moderate or high quality (AMSTAR ≥ 4) were included in the data synthesis. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two investigators. Results: Of the 35 relevant systematic reviews identified, 24 were of moderate and seven of high quality and were included in the data synthesis. The largest overall numbers of unique primary research studies with favorable outcomes were for diabetes control (78% of studies reporting the outcome), blood pressure control (74%), cholesterol (63%), medication adherence (56%) and medication management (47%). Significant reductions in medication and/or healthcare costs were reported in 35% of primary research studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 12 systematic reviews. Results from the meta-analyses suggested positive impacts on glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, cholesterol, and number and appropriateness of medications. Conflicting findings were reported in relation to hospitalization. No meta-analyses reported reduced mortality. Conclusion: Moderate and high quality systematic reviews support the value of pharmacist-led medication review for a range of clinical outcomes. Further research including more rigorous cost analyses are required to determine the impact of pharmacist-led medication reviews on humanistic and economic outcomes. Future systematic reviews should consider the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative studies to comprehensively evaluate medication review.
... Studies published in non-pharmacy practice/clinical pharmacy journals were excluded. A database of the first 30 articles meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria was created and finally ten articles [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] were randomly chosen using random numbers for quality evaluation. The search strategy was not designed to identify all qualitative papers in the field of clinical pharmacy but to minimize authors' bias towards study inclusion. ...
Article
Full-text available
The use of qualitative research methodology is well established for data generation within healthcare research generally and clinical pharmacy research specifically. In the past, qualitative research methodology has been criticized for lacking rigour, transparency, justification of data collection and analysis methods being used, and hence the integrity of findings. Demonstrating rigour in qualitative studies is essential so that the research findings have the “integrity” to make an impact on practice, policy or both. Unlike other healthcare disciplines, the issue of “quality” of qualitative research has not been discussed much in the clinical pharmacy discipline. The aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of rigour in qualitative research, present different philosophical standpoints on the issue of quality in qualitative research and to discuss briefly strategies to ensure rigour in qualitative research. Finally, a mini review of recent research is presented to illustrate the strategies reported by clinical pharmacy researchers to ensure rigour in their qualitative research studies.
... Data were extracted from nine controlled studies (Table 1), 20-28 34 observational or uncontrolled studies with a focus on MRPs (Table 2), [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and other clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes (Table 3), 10,44-61 11 qualitative (including interviews and focus groups) and nine survey research studies (Table 4). 11,13,[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Methodological quality of studies ...
Article
Full-text available
Clinical medication review (CMR) is a structured and collaborative service aimed at identifying and resolving medication-related problems (MRPs). This is the first systematic review of CMR research in Australia. To systematically review the processes and outcomes of CMR in community-settings in Australia. MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library and the grey literature were searched from 2000 to February 2015. All study designs were considered. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. Nine controlled studies, 34 observational and uncontrolled studies, 11 qualitative studies (focus groups and interviews) and nine survey studies were included. The CMRs resulted in identification of MRPs (n = 15 studies, mean 3.6 MPRs per CMR) and improved adherence (n = 3). Reductions in numbers of medications prescribed (n = 3 studies), hospitalizations (n = 3), potentially inappropriate prescribing (n = 3) and costs (n = 6) were demonstrated. Comparisons to a control group, predominately non-recipients of CMR, were made in eleven of 43 studies. Evidence supports additional models that promote interprofessional collaboration and timely referral following hospital discharge. Qualitative research identified low awareness of CMR among eligible non-recipients, while benefits were perceived to outweigh barriers to implementation. Underserved populations include indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse people, recipients of palliative care, those recently discharged from hospital, people with poor medication adherence, those in rural and remote areas, older males, and younger people with long-term, persistent or serious health problems. The available evidence suggests CMR is beneficial in improving the quality use of medications and health outcomes. However, lack of comparator groups in many observational studies limited the strength of conclusions in relation to the impact on clinical outcomes. Addressing access gaps for underserved populations, implementing additional referral pathways, and facilitating greater collaboration between the health professionals represent opportunities for further improvement. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Article
Background: An increased need is recognized to improve Indigenous cultural safety curriculum. This review aimed to inform curriculum development by identifying and categorizing challenges and opportunities that underlie existing practices. This entails policies, pharmacy services, and health workers' perspectives associated with pharmacy services for Indigenous peoples of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Methods: Four academic databases were screened including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. This search was complemented by grey literature database searches. Thematic analysis by NVivo, version 12 (QSR International) was utilized to analyze qualitative data, and a narrative strategy guided common theme consolidation. This approach was prefaced and supplemented using Endnote X9 (Clarivate) and SUMARI 2019 (JBI) and according to the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidelines. An Indigenous Curriculum Advisory Committee at the University of British Columbia Pharmaceutical Sciences was queried for suggestions, potential cross-cultural interpretation, and guidance for explicit content in the context of pharmacy service delivery in Indigenous communities. Results: Fourteen studies were included and classified into three categories: (1) Indigenous patients', pharmacists', and health care providers' perspectives, (2) policies and practices, (3) pharmacy-based programs. Thematic analysis portrayed several themes with overlapping presentation of challenges and opportunities. It is important to utilize evidence-based strategies for improving the effectiveness of culturally-safe pharmacy services for Indigenous populations and for optimizing education and practice-informed curriculum development. Implications: This information can inform pharmacists, educators, and faculty members in understanding and delivering optimal care and education engaging Indigenous insights and perspectives at systems and curricular levels.
Article
Full-text available
The role of pharmacists is expanding in primary care. There is evidence that greater collaboration between general practitioner; and pharmacists can improve patient care. Medication reviews are an example of how pharmacists can assist general practitioners. Joint training and co-location of practices should encourage increased collaboration between the professions.
Article
Full-text available
In Australia, Home Medicines Review (HMR) has been found to be an important tool to raise awareness of medication safety, reduce adverse events and improve medication adherence. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are 'underserviced' by the HMR program and are the most likely of all Australians to miss out on HMRs despite their high burden of chronic disease and high rates of hospitalisation due to medication misadventure. The goal of this study was to explore Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives of the Home Medicines Review program and their suggestions for an 'improved' or more readily accessible model of service. Eighteen semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 102 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients at 11 Aboriginal Health Services (AHSs). Participants who were multiple medication users and understood English were recruited to the study by AHS staff. Seven focus groups were conducted for people who had already used the HMR program (User, n =23) and 11 focus groups were conducted for people who had not had an HMR (Non User, n =79). Focus groups were recorded, de-identified and transcribed. Transcripts were coded and analysed for themes. Focus groups continued and concepts were explored until no new findings were being generated and thus saturation of data occurred. Focus group participants who had not had an HMR had little or no awareness of the HMR program. All the participants felt that lack of awareness and promotion of the HMR program were contributing factors to the low uptake of the HMR program by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Most participants felt that an HMR would assist them to better understand their medicines, would empower them to seek information about medicines, would improve relationships with health professionals and would increase the likelihood of medication adherence. Most of the User participants reported that the HMR interview had been very useful for learning more about their medicines. However, many reported that they found the process confusing and confronting. The majority of participants felt HMRs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients should be organised by AHS staff, with patients being offered a choice of location for the HMR interview. Participants identified that Aboriginal Health Workers should play a key role in communication, knowledge translation, referral and follow-up. Current HMR rules impede rather than facilitate HMRs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Tailoring and remodelling of the HMR program is needed to increase the awareness, accessibility, acceptability and effectiveness of the HMR program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Article
Full-text available
Despite the changing role of the pharmacist in patient-centred practice, pharmacists anecdotally reported little confidence in their clinical decision-making skills and do not feel responsible for their patients. Observational findings have suggested these trends within the profession, but there is a paucity of evidence to explain why. We conducted an exploratory study with an objective to identify reasons for the lack of responsibility and/or confidence in various pharmacy practice settings. Pharmacist interviews were conducted via written response, face-to-face or telephone. Seven questions were asked on the topic of responsibility and confidence as it applies to pharmacy practice and how pharmacists think these themes differ in medicine. Interview transcripts were analyzed and divided by common theme. Quotations to support these themes are presented. Twenty-nine pharmacists were asked to participate, and 18 responded (62% response rate). From these interviews, 6 themes were identified as barriers to confidence and responsibility: hierarchy of the medical system, role definitions, evolution of responsibility, ownership of decisions for confidence building, quality and consequences of mentorship and personality traits upon admission. We identified 6 potential barriers to the development of pharmacists' self-confidence and responsibility. These findings have practical applicability for educational research, future curriculum changes, experiential learning structure and pharmacy practice. Due to bias and the limitations of this form of exploratory research and small sample size, evidence should be interpreted cautiously. Pharmacists feel neither responsible nor confident for their clinical decisions due to social, educational, experiential and personal reasons. Can Pharm J 2013;146:155-161.
Article
This paper aims to explore the barriers and facilitators for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with chronic disease to access urban, mainstream general practice and primary health care. Six focus groups and five interviews were conducted with 40 participants that included Aboriginal people with diabetes, health service providers and policy makers. Using diabetes as the exemplar, participants were asked to relate their own experiences of diabetes management. Data was thematically analysed. Two overarching themes and seven other factors were identified as influencing Aboriginal people's access to health services. Cultural competence can be achieved within a health service when all nine factors are addressed in the context of the local community. Closing the health gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians requires a particular sensitivity and understanding of the facilitators and barriers for urban Aboriginal people accessing mainstream health services.
Article
Although the Home Medicines Review program was developed for all Australians judged to receive potential benefit, patients in rural and remote areas, where healthcare services and professionals are thin on the ground, can make particular use of the service. Fran Vaughan* draws on her experience as HMR facilitator at Central Australian Division of Primary Healthcare to discuss some of the issues surrounding the delivery of HMR services to people in rural and remote Australia.
Article
To explore Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients' experiences with medicines and the barriers and facilitators to their effective use of medicines. A descriptive, qualitative study, using 18 semi-structured focus groups with 101 Aboriginal and Torres Strait participants. Groups were conducted at 11 Aboriginal health services. These were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis was performed. Participants were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, taking multiple medicines, who attended Aboriginal health services (AHSs) and who spoke English. AHSs varied in governance, size and service delivery models as well as their locations which were across urban, regional, rural and remote settings. Major themes identified were consistent across all settings and patients. These were confusion over medicines, perceived lack of advice from health professionals to patients about medicines and challenges in having effective interactions with medical practitioners and pharmacists. Participants wanted more information about medicine, indications for medicine, how they should be used, potential side effects, drug interactions and duration of therapy. They also reported an absence of appropriate medication labelling and written information. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients take multiple medicines and often find managing their medicines difficult and worrying. These patients require more comprehensive information, verbal and written, and more effective communications from doctors and pharmacists about medication indications, mechanisms, side effects, drug interactions and duration of treatment. Pharmacists have an opportunity to play a greater role in improving understanding of medicines and treatment choices.
Article
Objective To systematically review the evidence for the effect of pharmaceutical care practice on patient outcomes. Setting Community and outpatient setting. Method Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1990 and 2003 were identified through a systematic literature search. To be included, studies had to assess the effect of a pharmaceutical care intervention, defined as a one-to-one consultation between each patient and a pharmacist with a focus on managing health or resolving drug-related problems, development of a care plan and follow-up. Key findings Twenty-two RCTs met the review criteria. Studies targeted general patient populations at risk of drug-related problems, disease-specific target groups or patients with risk factors including hypertension and raised cholesterol. While a number of trials have been undertaken, the variability in the application of endpoints utilised means the evidence for effectiveness of single endpoints apart from quality of life is generally limited to one or two controlled trial results. Collectively, the studies provide evidence that the service improves signs and symptoms for people with asthma, surrogate endpoints such as blood pressure, cholesterol levels and glycosylated haemoglobin and medication use, but do not provide evidence supporting improved health-related quality of life. One study showed an improvement in combined all-cause mortality and non-fatal heart failure-related events in patients with heart failure. Conclusion Pharmaceutical care services are effective in improving medication use and surrogate endpoints, but improvement in other outcomes is less conclusive. Given that the focus of the service is to resolve medication-related problems, consideration should be given to the use of adverse drug events and resolution of medication-related problems as an outcome measure in future studies.