Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study explores GPs' views on pharmacist-led medication review service, highlighting benefits and potential improvements.
Objectives To ascertain general practitioners' views of a pharmacist-led medication review (PLMR) service. In particular, to quantify the percentage of GPs who perceived PLMR to be a useful service to their practices; to explore key service benefits, problems and areas for future improvement; and to quantify the percentage of GPs who believed service benefits outweighed problems. Method Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of six GPs informed the development of a self-completion postal questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to all 258 GPs in the 82 practices where PLMR clinics were held. GP views on aspects of the PLMR process were elicited using a Likert scale. Closed questions sought views on overall service value. Free-text responses were sought on benefits, problems and areas for future improvement. Key findings The response rate was 84% for GPs (93% of practices were represented). Ninety-five per cent of respondents considered PLMR to be a useful service. Key perceived benefits (improved prescribing practice, raised standards of patient care and satisfaction, and increased GP knowledge and confidence) outweighed problems (space and time constraints, limited GP-pharmacist contact, occasional patient dissatisfaction). Only a minority of GPs felt that the written pharmacy referrals relating to specific patients were inappropriate. Views were divided as to whether PLMR increased or decreased practice workload. Suggestions for future improvements included increased GP-pharmacist communication and extended pharmacist roles. Conclusion The Glasgow model of PLMR deployed across a large Primary Care Trust by a team of pharmacists was viewed by those GPs who had received input as a useful service. The majority of GPs exposed to the service believed benefits outweighed problems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macrae et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: